Jake Schmidt's Blog: Greening China tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/jschmidt//134 2010-03-25T18:53:18Z Movable Type Enterprise 1.52 China leading the Clean Energy Race – Check out the Facts tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/jschmidt//134.5665 2010-03-25T16:23:22Z 2010-03-25T18:53:18Z Jake Schmidt “China is emerging as the world’s clean energy powerhouse…there are reasons to be concerned about the U.S. competitive position in the clean energy marketplace”.  Those are findings from a new report compiled using data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The report -- Who’s Winning the Clean Energy Race? Growth, Competition and Opportunity in the World’s Largest Economies – from the Pew Charitable Trusts is compiled by “the world’s leading provider of news, data and analysis on clean energy and carbon market finance and investment”, so this isn’t made up info – these are just the facts (from the report).

Overall clean energy investment grew by 230% from 2005-2009.  In 2009, $162 billion was invested globally in clean energy such as wind, solar, energy efficiency, and biofuels.  But that is just a drop in the bucket of the potential as my colleague has recently pointed out: there is a $13 trillion market over the next two decades that will materialize as the world moves towards solving global warming (and as he detailed here).  In just 2010 alone, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates that a record $200 billion will be invested in clean energy globally.

China takes the lead, while the US slips.  In 2009, China took the top spot in total clean energy investment with $34.6 billion – surging past the US (in second place) with $18.6 billion (as the LA Times reports).  The US held the top spot for the last 5 years.  In the last 5 years, the growth in clean energy investment in China and Brazil were each 148% (tied for 2nd behind Turkey), while the US was 103% (in 6th place, behind Turkey, China, Brazil, the UK, and Italy).  And relative to the size of its economy, the US clean energy finance and investments lag behind many countries.  For example, China’s clean energy investment is 0.39% of its gross domestic product (the 3rd largest), while the US is 0.13% of GDP (in 11th place). 

There is a bright sign for the US which invested more of the economic recovery funding in clean energy ($67 billion) than China ($47 billion).  And since two-thirds of this spending is expected in 2010-2011, the US can expect some surge as this money is deployed.  But China isn’t standing by, as my colleague has noted China has recently renewed its commitment to renewable energy and improved its renewable policies.

US still has the largest renewable energy capacity, but just barely.  In 2009, China was second in installed renewable energy capacity (52.5 GW), just behind the U.S. (53.4 GW).  But over the past 5 years, the growth in the US has lagged behind other key players.  South Korea led the pack over the last 5 years with a 249% growth, followed by China at a 79% increase.  The US had the 8th fastest growth over the last 5 years, trailing South Korea, China, Australia, France, India, the UK, and Turkey. 

Policies for clean energy matter.  As the report finds:

“…nations such as China, Brazil, Germany and Spain that have adopted national renewable energy and energy efficiency standards, feed-in tariffs, carbon reduction targets and/or financial incentives for investment and production are assuming leadership positions in the clean energy sector.”

China, India, Brazil, South Korea, and Mexico have all signaled clear steps that they’ll take to curb their global warming pollution and deploy clean energy (as I’ve noted here).  And many of these countries have been implementing policies to reduce their global warming pollution and deploy clean energy both before Copenhagen and after.  As the report notes: “Ambitious, mandatory targets for wind and solar power and ample availability of credit in China have been the primary engines of that nation’s clean energy growth” (more detail from our China Program team available here on their renewable programs).  And as a part of their commitment towards the Copenhagen Accord, which we envision they’ll inscribe in their next 5-year plan (the law of the land), they have committed to: reduce its carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020 from 2005 levels and increase the share of non-fossil energy in its primary energy consumption to around 15% by 2020 (as we noted here).  South Korea has committed to reduce emissions to 30 percent below projected levels by 2020 and has passed a national law to implement a cap-and-trade program (as noted here).  India has committed to cut its emissions intensity by 20-25% by 2020 from 2005 levels and has announced both a “clean energy tax” on coal to create a national fund to support renewable energy projects and a “tax break” for imports on renewable energy equipment (as my colleague noted here).

So does the US throw-up its hands or does it do something to change the recent trend?  Passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill in the US can put America first in the clean energy jobs race (as my colleague noted) – a $13 trillion race over the next two decades.  As a result, the US has an opportunity to create 1.9 million new clean energy jobs by 2020 under a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill, but only if we act now. While at the same time we can cut US dependence on foreign oil by over 50% (as we noted here).

Time for the US to get seriously in the race for the clean energy economy and jobs of this century by passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill.  We don’t have time to wait as the race is on (and while the US was fast out of the starting blocks it is lagging in the mid-course).

---------------------

Follow me on twitter: @jschmidtnrdc and Track countries' actions to reduce emissions.

]]> China and India to Report their Global Warming Pollution Every 2 Years tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/jschmidt//134.5567 2010-03-16T13:30:40Z 2010-03-26T09:59:54Z Jake Schmidt Both China and India have now reaffirmed that they will report their global warming emissions every 2 years.  The framework of this was agreed in the Copenhagen Accord which outlined that every two years developing countries will report their national emissions inventories and emission reduction actions based upon internationally agreed guidelines (as I discussed here). 

Here is what the Accord actually said in this regard:

“Mitigation actions subsequently taken and envisaged by Non-Annex I Parties, including national inventory reports, shall be communicated through national communications…every two years on the basis of guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties”. 

And now two key players in those portions of the agreement have just reiterated to domestic audiences that they will implement this provision.  That is a very positive move which takes further international steps to address global warming as agreed in the Copenhagen Accord (as I discussed here).

China’s chief climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, highlighted before the National People’s Congress (the legislative body in China) that under the requirements of the Copenhagen Accord, China has agreed to submit an inventory report every two years to the UN Secretariat (as my colleague reported).  And Indian Minister Jairam Ramesh just announced that they will be releasing an emissions inventory for 2007 in May, to be updated every two years (as reported by The Hindu). 

So why is this so important from an environmental standpoint?  One of the fundamentals of any environmental policy is a three step process of knowing:

  1. Where you currently are (e.g., how good, bad, or ugly is your current environmental situation);
  2. Where you want to head (e.g., what are you trying to achieve in order to solve the challenge); and
  3. Where you are at various points towards your end goal – point 2 (e.g., in 2 years time are you making good progress towards your goal or not).

Creating a process to improve the assessment of progress.  Before the Copenhagen Accord, the world had an incomplete system of accountability and transparency.  All countries developed national emissions inventories and submitted “National Communications” containing summary information on national emissions, actions that the country was undertaking to reduce emissions, and reports on the country’s progress.  But these National Communications have been extremely limited for developing countries as they have been too infrequent to generate information on current trends.  For the most part, official information on developing country emissions dates back to 1994.  That is an incomplete snapshot as we know that those emissions have changed dramatically since then.  For example in 1994 China and India accounted for 14 and 4% of the world’s emissions from fossil fuels and now they account for 22 and 5%, respectively  -- both country’s emissions essentially doubling over that timeframe.* 

So the announcements by Chinese and Indian officials are important steps to improve the environmental assessment provisions of the international framework.  And it will add confidence to efforts to regularly assess the progress that countries are making towards their commitments recorded as a part of the Copenhagen Accord (as I discussed here). 

Going into Copenhagen we effectively had official global warming emissions from developing countries reported every 15 years and now we have emissions reported every 2 years.  A point highlighted by Minister Ramesh: “The last data on emissions dates back to 1994”.

So the fact that the world didn’t have good, regularly updated, and consistent information on where key countries emissions stood and a system to regularly assess progress was a significant limitation.  But this limitation is slowly being eliminated as countries take concrete steps to implement the key provisions of the Copenhagen Accord.  China and India have now reaffirmed to important domestic audiences that they will move forward domestically with the transparency provisions – a critical cornerstone of the agreement reached in Copenhagen.

---------

* Data from the World Resources Institute’s Climate Analysis Indicator tool for 1994 and 2006, respectively.

]]> Countries Accounting for 80% of the World’s Emissions are Taking Steps to Curb Their Global Warming Pollution tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/jschmidt//134.5339 2010-02-16T18:35:38Z 2010-02-26T14:23:28Z Jake Schmidt As I mentioned here by the end of January countries were to register their actions to reduce global warming pollution as agreed under the Copenhagen Accord.  And by deadline countries accounting for over 80% of the world’s global warming pollution (and a bit more) have registered their actions to reduce their pollution.  So what does this all mean?

We’ve pulled together a little summary table which shows the commitments from all the countries (available here*).  A total of 60** countries have outlined commitments to take steps to reduce their global warming pollution.  These include all the top 12 emitting countries, all the countries in the BASIC negotiating group (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China), all the current members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (with the exception of Chile that just joined, but who is taking steps as my colleague discussed here), and 12 of the top 15 countries in terms of economic output (by gross domestic product).

These countries are the “big players” which almost single-handedly hold the key to solving global warming.  The steps they take are critical.  So let me repeat: countries representing over 80% of the world’s emissions have just committed to steps to reduce their global warming pollution.  As I’ve discussed here, this is a huge shift from where we were just 2 years ago (and even 6 months ago).  That is something to build upon since the key to solving global warming is whether or not key countries are committing to take action, implementing policies and programs to achieve those commitments, and whether those actions are actually reducing emissions (as I discussed in this ClimateWire/NY Times article). 

This focus on ACTION is one of the reasons that we created a new website to track the actions that countries commit to and their policies/programs to achieve those commitments (see Tracking National Commitments to Curb Global Warming). 

So how do the actions of these countries stack up against global efforts to hold temperatures to less than 2°C (3.6°F) – the goal agreed in the Copenhagen Accord?  There have been a couple of recent analyses which provide some insight.  Their conclusions range from: “we are within reach” to “we are headed way off track” – as I’ll discuss below (and as my colleague discussed right after Copenhagen).

“We are within reach”.  An analysis by the Peterson Institute (and reported about at DotEarth) concluded that: “if countries follow through on their pledges and follow on with more aggressive action, it looks like keeping global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius is still within reach.”  A report by Sir Nick Stern of the proposed pledges prior to Copenhagen found that: “if delivered, [they] constitute a big step towards a path consistent with the 2°C goal”, but there was still a gap in 2020.

“We are headed way off track”.  An analysis by a coalition of research institutes called Climate Action Tracker concluded that: “the current pledges leave the world heading for a global warming of over 3°C above pre-industrial levels”.  A study by the Climate Interactive team similarly found that we are more likely headed for an above 3°C world as they concluded that: the current pledges “if fully implemented, would allow global mean temperature to increase approximately 3.9°C (7.0°F)”.  And another analysis by Project Catalyst of the pledges on the table prior to Copenhagen found that: “Copenhagen must lock-in commitments at or above the high end of the current proposal range in order to preserve the possibility of limiting warming to 2°C”, but there was still a big gap in 2020.  They also concluded that: “The low-end of the proposal range would risk permanently losing the opportunity to limit warming to 2°C and exposing the world to unacceptable climate risks”.

A bit confused how the same proposals to cut emissions can result in different conclusions on the impact of those emissions reductions for solving global warming?  Think of it this way: for every ton of global warming pollution that you don’t reduce now you have to reduce later, since it is essentially about how much cumulative emissions the world emits.***  So these different studies draw different conclusions largely because they assume different rates that the world can reduce emissions after 2020 (the date when most of the targets were defined).  This is because they have different assumptions about: how fast technology can be developed and deployed (e.g., if you don’t drive innovation now, you won’t have the necessary technologies in the future), the political will to undertake aggressive actions in the future (e.g., future politicians will never put in place the necessary policies to embark on that rate of change), etc.        

What does this all mean?  Do we throw in our towel and give up or do we celebrate as we are on the necessary path.  The answer is neither, so we must: 

  1. Find ways to ensure that countries meet (or exceed) their stated commitments.  The atmosphere doesn’t look favorably on pledges that aren’t met (nor should we) so we must encourage, nudge, etc. countries to live up their commitments.  This means that countries will need to effectively implement policies and programs in their domestic law that reduce emissions and it means “giving life” to the transparency and accountability provisions that were agreed as a part of Copenhagen (that I discussed here).
  2. Keep at it.  If you thought that solving global warming was going to be achieved in one meeting or one year, you were following the wrong issue.  Solving global warming will require the dedicated focus over a sustained period of time.  And that effort will have to get more aggressive over time as I highlight in point #3.
  3. Change the politics and prove that it can be done.  Right now the current global warming politics is stuck between those that say that this can be done and those that say that it will destroy the economy (or in developing countries, it will stymie efforts to pull millions of people out of poverty).  Of course, we know in the U.S. from independent analysis that meeting the reduction goals is cost-effective (see here and here), will create more jobs (see here), will achieve other important objectives like reducing dependence on foreign oil (see here).  And we are seeing some developing countries pulling millions out of poverty while still implementing serious efforts to reduce their pollution.  So it can be done.  But to change the politics we need to prove that it can be done by actually doing it across the world, which is why we need to get started.  That is the typical history of environmental regulation – we get started, we find out that it can be done without destroying the economy (despite claims to the contrary), and this allows us to make it tougher over time.

So, we must lock-in the emissions reduction actions that we have, ensure that they are met, and make them tougher over time. 

* The compilation of country submissions was greatly aided by our intern Lovelyn Nwarueze and our program assistant Carolina Herrera.

** I've updated this tally to breakout the 27 countries of the EU.

***That is an overly simple way of describing the challenge as there are important feedbacks which might be triggered if we exceed certain thresholds, but it helps to simply the differences in the conclusions of these studies.

---------------------

Follow me on twitter: @jschmidtnrdc and Track countries' actions to reduce emissions.

]]> Copenhagen Accord = Climate Action - Update tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/jschmidt//134.5226 2010-02-01T14:48:58Z 2010-02-11T10:36:14Z Jake Schmidt In December 2009, more than 120 Heads of Government attended the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, the largest meeting of world leaders in history (the previous largest one was the funeral of the Pope according to Wikipedia).  Many of the leaders came to Copenhagen with new commitments to actions on global warming pollution (as I discussed here and here).  Under the Accord, all of the big emitters are expected to record their commitments officially by January 31st, 2010 (in Appendix I and Appendix II). 

Countries used to say: “we’ll act if you act”.  Coming out of Copenhagen they are saying: “we’ll all act together”.  So at the end of January, where are we towards those commitments?

Presidents and Prime Ministers from more than two dozen key countries that represent more than 80 percent of the world’s global warming pollution hammered out the Copenhagen Accord (as you can see in this table).  So actions by these countries to reduce their emissions will be critical to solving global warming.

While the Accord didn’t accomplish all that we will ultimately need to address global warming, the Copenhagen Accord made progress on one of the key foundations for international efforts -- ACTIONS BY KEY COUNTRIES TO REDUCE THEIR GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION (as I discussed here, my colleague discussed here, and NRDC’s President discussed here). 

NRDC will be tracking the commitments that countries outline to reduce their emissions.  We will also follow the steps taken to implement these commitments -- the laws, policies, programs, etc -- and countries progress towards those commitments.  And we’ll be tracking the support that is provided to assist developing countries in deploying clean energy, reducing deforestation emissions, and adapting to the impacts of global warming.  So please follow progress on our new webpage and help us go From the Copenhagen Accord to Climate Action: Tracking National Commitments to Curb Global Warming. 

We are at the end of January -- the timeframe established in the Accord for countries to register their emissions reduction actions.  So let’s look at what key countries have registered as their actions towards reducing their global warming pollution.

United States -- reduce emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 and ultimately in line with the energy and climate legislation passed by Congress.  See David Doniger’s post for more details on the US.

China -- reduce emissions per unit of GDP of 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and a commitment to increasing energy from non-fossil fuels to supply 15 percent of China's primary energy consumption by 2020. Also committed to increase forest cover by 40 million hectares by 2020 and increase forest stock volume 1.3 billion cubic meters above 2005 levels by 2020.  See my colleague Barbara Finamore’s post for more details on the actions in China.

India -- reduce emissions per unit of GDP of 20 to 25 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. To meet and exceed this goal, India is increasing fuel efficiency standards by 2011; adopting building energy codes by 2012; increasing forest cover to sequester 10 percent of India's annual emissions in their forests; increasing the fraction of India's electricity derived from wind, solar, and small hydro to 20 percent in 2020 (from the current level of 8 percent).  My colleague Anjali Jaiswal’s will post for more details on the actions in India.

Brazil -- reduce emissions growth by 36 to 39 percent below business-as-usual levels by 2020 -- a level estimated to bring down Brazil’s emissions to 1994 levels. Brazil also pledged to cut deforestation by 80 percent from historic levels by 2020 (as I’ve discussed here).

European Union -- reduce emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and would increase their commitment to 30 percent if other countries commit to ambitious efforts.

South Africa -- reduce emissions growth 34 to 42 percent below business-as-usual levels by 2020 with finance, technology, and capacity-building support from the developed world.  See my previous post on South Africa for more details.

Mexico -- reduce its greenhouse gas emissions up to 30% compared to business as usual levels by 2020, provided there is adequate financial and technological support.  They also committed to reduce CO2 emissions by 51 million tons by 2012.

Indonesia -- reduce emissions by 26 percent by 2020 from business-as-usual levels and by as much as 41 percent with international support.  See my previous post for more on Indonesia.

South Korea -- reduce emissions to 30 percent below projected levels by 2020, which equates to a target of approximately 4 percent below 2005 levels.  See my previous post for more context on South Korea’s actions.

Some of these commitments are being conveyed to the U.N. as “voluntary commitments”.  And I’m sure some will say, “we’ll those aren’t meaningful since the country isn’t saying that they’ll definitely do it”.  But these countries are actually putting in place laws, regulations, and programs in their domestic context to actually meet these objectives.  That is important as that is where the rubber meets the road.  And with the agreement on transparency in the Copenhagen Accord (as I discussed here) we’ll actually have regular mechanisms to evaluate the progress of countries towards their commitments.

These commitments are not enough to curb global warming, but they could be the first steps on a new pathway to real progress in reducing emissions and moving to a global low-carbon economy.  They signal a real willingness of countries to move past words and to concrete actions to curb their global warming pollution. 

So now is the time to move past words and to action.  As the international efforts continue, let’s continue to focus on the actions that countries take to reduce their global warming pollution – after all that is what will actually solve global warming.  I hope you’ll help us keep track and make sure that the Copenhagen Accord leads to climate action.

-------

Updates: Mexico's letter was officially posted so I changed their commitment to this new one.  Prior Mexico had only spelled out a 2050 and a 2012 objective, but the official letter announces a new 2020 commitment.

All the official letters are available here for industrialized country commitments, here for developing country actions, and here for all others that sent official letters related to the Accord.

]]> Developing Country Action to Reduce Global Warming Pollution: Copenhagen Part 3 tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.4805 2009-12-03T21:23:54Z 2009-12-13T17:30:39Z Jake Schmidt "If only developing countries would take action to reduce their global warming pollution".   That is the refrain that was heard in capitals around the world for years.  This was driven partly by a concern over competitiveness in some places (e.g., the US and EU).  And it was also driven by the reality that global emissions (both developed and developing country) need to decline if we are going to solve this challenge.  And while developed countries need to take the lead in making deep emissions cuts (as I discussed in Part 2), we need to find a way for developing countries to pull millions/billions of people out of poverty while reducing global warming pollution.  

"We can't accept limits on our global warming pollution".  This is a refrain we used to hear from major developing countries for years.  Almost anytime they were asked by a reporter (or anyone else for that matter) something like that came out.  Usually this was read as: "we won't do anything to address our global warming pollution".  Which wasn't exactly true in many countries, but perception is often as important as facts.

Well thankfully both refrains have much better answers now than a couple of years ago (and even a couple of weeks ago).

So the next key element of the international agreement that I'll discuss is the: willingness of developing countries to undertake significant emissions reductions on their own that tangibly reduce the growth of their emissions in the near-term (e.g., to 2020) and lay the foundation for even deeper cuts in the medium-term.  This action is closely related to the "incentives for deeper emissions reductions" (my "key element" 4, which I'll cover in Part 5) and the mechanisms to ensure that countries "open up their books and defend them" (my "key element" 6, which I'll discuss in Part 6).

All the major emerging economies have outlined specific efforts that they'll undertake to curb their global warming pollution.  These include:

  • China has just announced that they'll cut their greenhouse gas emissions intensity per unit of GDP by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020 (as my colleague Barbara Finamore discussed here).  And they previously announced that they would have non-fossil fuels account for 15% of their primary energy consumption by 2020 and increase forest cover by 40 million hectares by 2020 (as I discussed here).
  • Brazil has pledged to cut their deforestation rate by 80% from historic rates by 2020 (as I discussed here).  They have been making pretty good progress on addressing their deforestation rates over the past couple of years (as you can see here).  Brazil has also just announced that it will reduce emissions by 36-39% in 2020 below the projected level (as released here by the Brazilian government)-a level estimated to cut their emissions to their levels in 1994.
  • India, has just announced that they are "voluntarily ready to reduce emission intensity by 20-25 per cent [below 2005 levels] within 2020" (as reported here).  This target is based upon a new estimate of the impact of a number of measures which are part of a comprehensive National Action Plan on Climate Change, where they outlined commitments to national mitigation actions, including plans to generate 20GW of solar capacity by 2020 and cut energy consumption by 5% by 2015 (as you can see in this NRDC fact sheet).
  • Indonesia has announced that they were devising an energy policy including land use and forestry which will reduce emissions by 26 percent by 2020 from business as usual levels, eventually reducing emissions by as much as 41 percent with help from the international community (as I discussed here).
  • South Korea announced that they would cut their economy-wide global warming pollution to 30 percent below the projected 2020 levels -- an estimated 4 percent cut from 2005 levels (as I discussed here).
  • Mexico is developing an emissions trading system to cut emissions from the electricity, oil, cement, and possibly steel sectors. In addition, President Calderon has committed to cut Mexico's emissions by 50% in 2050 (as I discussed here). Stay tuned as it wouldn't surprise me if Mexico firmed up that commitment in Copenahagen.
  • South Africa has outlined that their emissions "must peak, plateau, and decline". Specifically, this would mean that South Africa's emissions must stop growing no later than 2025 and must begin declining in absolute terms around 2030-2035 (as I discussed here)

Copenhagen has been a driver for developing countries to bring forward commitments to action.  These major emerging economies combined with the developed countries that are taking action (as I discussed in Part 2) account for over 80% of the world's global warming pollution.  So all the major emitters have now signaled efforts that they'll take to curb their global warming pollution. 

If you would have asked anyone just 2 years ago (or even 1 year ago), I wager that no one would have told you that all these countries would have come forward with such signs of actions.  So Copenhagen has been an important driver in encouraging major emerging economies to bring forward commitments to curb their global warming pollution.

Hopefully this progress will get solidified in the international agreement in some manner (as I'll discuss in Part 6) and then next year we can focus on firming up these commitments and translating them into the final international agreement.

But either way, these are very positive signs that less global warming pollution will be going into the atmosphere from these key countries.  I'm optimistic that more can be done, but let's not lose focus on the progress that has occurred on this front.

]]> Subtle but Important Shifts in Global Warming Positions Just Announced by US & China tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.4699 2009-11-17T18:13:43Z 2009-11-27T14:15:12Z Jake Schmidt China and the U.S. just announced a Joint Statement (available here) and a package of agreed actions on clean energy.  This meeting between these two countries that account for around 40% of the world's CO2 emissions from fossil fuels couldn't come at a more critical time in efforts to secure a strong international agreement to address global warming pollution (as I discussed here).

We didn't expect big announcements on the critical issues of specific emissions reduction commitments from the two countries (hopefully that will be outlined in the coming months), but the US and China did agreed to some very positive shifts on a couple of fronts.  These were subtle, but important changes in the Chinese position that has occurred over the last year.  Having President Obama talking about global warming with China on such frequency and at such a high-level has definitely helped with this shift.

Here are the headlines from the climate portions of the Joint Statement that struck me.  (The NRDC China Program team will also provide some perspectives on the agreed package of actions on clean energy, available here).

  1.   Nature of the Copenhagen outcome. 

There was a little buzz over the weekend, when 19 countries reportedly agreed that they would seek a framework in Copenhagen that agrees to "one agreement, two steps" (as I discussed here).  Here is what the Joint US-China Statement had to say on that front:

"...both sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should...include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries.  The outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries, promote technology development, dissemination and transfer, pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, promote steps to preserve and enhance forests, and provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology and capacity building support" [emphasis added].

So while the US and China both recognized the challenge of finalizing the legal agreement in Copenhagen (as was recognized this weekend and that I discussed here), they did stress that the agreement could be more than just a mere piece of paper that has no meaning.  Rather, if such an agreement were reached in Copenhagen with the elements that they stressed, it could lead to real commitments to actions that reduce emissions while the full legal agreement is finalized.  So as I said before: stay tuned as I expect we'll have an interesting two-week ride in Copenhagen.

  2.  Both countries will take mitigation commitments and "stand  behind them". 

Here is what they had to say on this important front:  "The United States and China...resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world's ability to combat climate change" [emphasis added] .

While Chinese President Hu Jintao announced in September that China would take further actions to address their global warming pollution, including outlining an effort to reduce the overall global warming pollution intensity of their economy (as I discussed here and my colleague discussed here), this announcement codifies that this commitment will be forthcoming.  And given that they also agreed that the Copenhagen Agreement should include "mitigation actions of developing countries", it now appears clear that the Chinese will commit to those actions in an international agreement.  It wasn't clear before whether China would just have those as domestic commitments or whether they would also translate them into international commitments (as I discussed here) so this is a positive change. 

And they also announced that:

"The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments" [emphasis  added].

This is a shift from the previous Chinese position in that they weren't willing to "open up their books and defend them" in the same way that the US would (as I discussed here). 

So that means that China and the US agreed that they would both have to commit to these emissions reduction actions internationally and they would be held accountable for them.  Both of these signal a subtle, but important shift that will help make China more accountable to meet their commitments.

  3.  Both countries actions to reduce emissions will be fully transparent. 

Both sides agreed that the international agreement should:  "...provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology and capacity building support" [emphasis added].

This didn't go as far as we ultimately need on the transparency of actions, but the Chinese did move from their previous position.  The Chinese have been saying before that they wouldn't subject all their actions to international scrutiny.  And now they are at least saying that those actions would need to be done with "full transparency".  And as a part of this agreement they signed a Memorandum of Cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States and the National Development and Reform Commission of China and to Build Capacity to Address Climate Change.  As my colleague has discussed (see here) there are steps that would need to be taken to "build confidence on US-China climate actions".  Hopefully this shift and cooperation agreement will provide further flesh to the important "transparency" issue of Chinese and US actions.

--------------

In addition to these overarching shifts, the two sides did also agree to a set of joint actions that will hopefully produce tangible reductions in global warming pollution and deployment of clean energy.

So while the US and China didn't agree to the big ticket items -- the specific emissions reductions objectives -- which we ultimately need them to commit to, there were some important shifts in the Chinese position.

Hopefully we'll see even more shifts in the coming couple of weeks (and months).  The shifts from these two key countries have a very big impact on the overall stability of the international efforts to address global warming.

]]> Obama’s First Trip to China: What to Expect on Global Warming tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.4695 2009-11-16T23:07:31Z 2009-11-26T18:19:02Z Jake Schmidt President Obama is on a swing through Asia and is now in China for high-level meetings on a range of issues.  At the top of his agenda with China is how these two key players can individually and jointly move forward on efforts to address global warming.  This is especially important as Copenhagen is just 3 weeks away and the U.S. Senate is immersed in efforts to finalize a clean energy and global warming bill in the first part of next year.  China and the US are critical players in both debates.

This is his first trip to China and it couldn't come at a more critical time in the world's efforts to address global warming pollution.  After all these two countries account for 40% of the world's global warming pollution from fossil fuel combustion.  So as we said before these two countries jointly hold the key to either sustainability or catastrophe.

Later in the week President Obama will meet with President Hu Jintao to discuss global warming.  This is where we expect further details will be announced on a number of further steps that the two countries will undertake on global warming and clean energy.  These new agreements will likely "add flesh" to the agreements reached in July (as my colleague Barbara Finamore discussed here). 

Before Obama heads to Beijing to meet with President Hu and Premier Wen, he made a stop in Shanghai where he conducted a "town hall" style event with Chinese youth.  Here is what he said in response to a question on: "what are you bringing to China, your visit to China this time, and what will you bring back to the United States?"

"...the discussions that I intend to have with President Hu speak to the point that Ambassador Huntsman made earlier, which is there are very few global challenges that can be solved unless the United States and China agree.

So let me give you a specific example, and that is the issue we were just discussing of climate change.  The United States and China are the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, of carbon that is causing the planet to warm.  Now, the United States, as a highly developed country, as I said before, per capita, consumes much more energy and emits much more greenhouse gases for each individual than does China.  On the other hand, China is growing at a much faster pace and it has a much larger population.  So unless both of our countries are willing to take critical steps in dealing with this issue, we will not be able to resolve it.

There's going to be a Copenhagen conference in December in which world leaders are trying to find a recipe so that we can all make commitments that are differentiated so each country would not have the same obligations -- obviously China, which has much more poverty, should not have to do exactly the same thing as the United States -- but all of us should have these certain obligations in terms of what our plan will be to reduce these greenhouse gases.

So that's an example of what I hope to get out of this meeting -- a meeting of the minds between myself and President Hu about how together the United States and China can show leadership.  Because I will tell you, other countries around the world will be waiting for us.  They will watch to see what we do. And if they say, ah, you know, the United States and China, they're not serious about this, then they won't be serious either.  That is the burden of leadership that both of our countries now carry.  And my hope is, is that the more discussion and dialogue that we have, the more we are able to show this leadership to the world on these many critical issues."

Clearly this reiterates that engagement with China on global warming is one of the top issues between the two countries.  There are many things he could have used as an example, but the fact that global warming was used shows how important that issue is to the current Sino-American relationship.  That is how they can show leadership...by finding solutions to this critical challenge.  We couldn't agree more!

We don't expect final agreement between the two countries on all the key actions that they'll undertake to curb their global warming pollution on this trip (such as the exact greenhouse gas intensity target that China would commit to as announced by President Hu in September as I discussed here).  But we do hope that they'll reach agreement on a couple of key issues (as our President Frances Beinecke recently discussed and some that my colleague Barbara Finamore has highlighted).  These could include agreements on energy efficiency, renewable energy, electric vehicles, carbon capture and storage, and monitoring and reporting of emissions.  Stay tuned on that front as the NRDC team will have more to say as details emerge later in the week. 

While not likely to produce the big headlines that an agreement on China's greenhouse gas intensity target would generate, these key action-oriented steps will both help make a serious down payment in curbing global warming pollution and give a needed boost to efforts to finalize an international agreement.

Also important to this trip is how these two key players build stronger relationships on global warming.  After all, we'll need these two countries to work together over a long period of time to address global warming.  So it is best if that collaboration is built on a solid foundation.  Obama struck the right tone on that front in Shanghai and hopefully President Hu and Obama will build on that in Beijing.

So Obama's first trip to China is off to a good start.  Let's hope that the next day produces even more tangible steps that the two countries can undertake to address global warming pollution.

]]> Benefits of Addressing Global Warming Outweigh the Costs: Says International Energy Agency tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.4324 2009-10-06T11:37:50Z 2009-10-16T08:19:40Z Jake Schmidt I just participated in a briefing that the International Energy Agency (IEA) provided to climate negotiators in Bangkok.  It was an excerpt from their soon to be released World Energy Outlook which is the IEA's regular projection of global energy use and global warming pollution.

This analysis (available here and the presentation available here) is the first to account for the global impact of the financial crisis and the first time that they presented results for a low global warming pollution scenario with results on a country-by-country basis.

The most important finding was that the benefits of taking serious steps to solve global warming far outweigh the costs of taking action.  And the IEA representatives in fact said this explicitly in response to a question.  So when you conservatively look at both sides of the balance sheet (the costs and benefits) you find that taking action gives you a positive balance sheet (no debt here).  Here is how they come up with this conclusion:

  • Total additional investment of $10,500 billion will be needed from 2010-2030 to be on path to solving global warming pollution;
  • Savings in energy costs of undertaking this investment will be $8,600 billion over this period; and
  • Reduced costs of local air pollution will be $40 billion in 2020 and $100 billion in 2030.

This doesn't include a whole bunch of costs that would make the balance sheet more complete, but even with this limited list of benefits calculated the world is better off for taking action.  And if you include the costs of global warming then the balance sheet will tip even more in the favor of taking action.

None of this is an earth shattering finding if you've read other good analysis that looks at the whole picture.  But this is the IEA saying and analyzing this finding.  This is notoriously a very conservative organization that is more likely to inflate the costs than to inflate the benefits.  So think of this as a conservative finding, which makes it even more compelling.

Other findings of note include (I'll try to post more details as I dig into the report further):

  • If we don't take action we are headed for a 6°C world (a 1000 parts per million one). I for one don't want to live in that world as it implies a large number of climate impacts that are probably too concerning to even mention.
  • We can be on path to solving global warming with the right investments. Clearly it requires a large investment and political focus to drive these results, but they analyzed a scenario that put the world on a path to hold temperatures less than 2°C (3.6°F). And they did this with basically the set of technologies that we know today and are in various stages of being deployed around the world. Energy efficiency is the dominant source of reduction (65% of the reduction in 2020), followed by renewables (17% of the reduction). Have you ever heard of those technologies? Oh yeah we already use them.
  • Oil imports are reduced in the industrialized countries by 7 million barrels per day in 2030 below what they were in 2008; in China and India oil imports are lowered by 10%. That would have a noticeable impact on whole host of things that we care about for other reasons, such as national security and saving money to invest at home.
  • Big reductions in local air pollution as a result of taking action on global warming pollution. In 2030, sulfur dioxide emissions are 29% lower, nitrous oxide emissions are 19% lower, and particulate matter is 9% lower. This saves $200 billion in 2030 for the cost of pollution control. I don't know about you, but I kind of like the idea of having less dangerous smog and other pollutants in the air, especially this leads to both asthma, death, and lost work days (just to name a few).

Taking action on global warming at Copenhagen is a good investment for the world - the balance sheet is positive.  This new analysis has shown that addressing global warming saves countries money from reduced oil consumption, reduced energy needs, and local air pollution.  And this doesn't include the costs of global warming impacts which will tip the balance sheet even farther in favor of taking action.  This shows that addressing this challenge can reap financial benefits if world leaders focus on driving these solutions.  A clear and strong outcome in Copenhagen will unlock this potential.

]]> Seizing the Opportunity: Reflections from the UN Climate Summit tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.4226 2009-09-24T16:53:41Z 2009-10-04T13:19:03Z Jake Schmidt Countdown to CopenhagenClimate week began with world leaders participating in a full day of discussions on global warming.  Over 100 world leaders were in attendance -- the largest gathering of world leaders on global warming and the first in many respects.  The leaders of a number of the key countries provided remarks.  Yesterday's events were intended to give a much needed injection of energy to the final stretch of the international negotiations to secure a new agreement in Copenhagen this December.

Remember, there are five key building blocks for the agreement that emerges from Copenhagen so we need to watch what details are filled in on each of these:

  1. Strong leadership from developed countries with firm and aggressive emissions reductions targets.
  2. Willingness of developing countries to undertake significant emissions reductions on their own that tangibly reduce the growth of their emissions in the near-term (e.g., to 2020) and lay the foundation for even deeper cuts in the medium-term.
  3. Turning the corner on efforts to combat global deforestation.
  4. Properly designed and performance-based incentives from developed countries to encourage even greater developing country emissions reductions.
  5. Support for adaptation to the impacts of climate change in the least vulnerable countries.

As I discussed there are some "rays of hope" in international efforts to address global warming.  And leader after leader effectively said something to the effect of: "the fate of future generations depends upon our choices today and our future is in our hands" (or something like that).  Some said it more eloquently than me, but my speech writers aren't paid as well.

The UN climate summit provided some boosts to the international negotiations as we lead into the final stretch before Copenhagen.  Some of these were significant enough to attract attention in the media, while others slipped a bit below the radar but are no less important.

China.  President Hu Jintao outlined a set of new actions that China will undertake to reduce their global warming pollution.  Most significant they signaled that they would reduce their emissions intensity (emissions per unit of Gross Domestic Product) by "a notable margin by 2020 from 2005 levels."  They held back the actual number that they would reduce their intensity by in 2020, but this is a negotiation (as I discussed here) so this isn't surprising at this stage.  But as I discussed here and my colleague Barbara Finamore discussed here, this action could mark an important shift in China's efforts. 

It is getting harder and harder for countries to hide behind the inaction of China with these promising signs from China. 

The details of this new commitment are important, but it is clear that China is willing to take steps to cut its emissions and they signaled that internationally.  The US has an important role to play in helping to secure that the detailed commitments that emerge from China are strong.  The Chinese will be looking to what the US will do domestically through its clean energy and climate bill, but also what the US will be asking of them through the US-China bilateral agreement.  A huge opportunity!

India.  Over the last couple of weeks India has shown some very promising shifts in their position.  As my colleagues have discussed here and here, India recently announced it would quantify the emissions cuts it will make under its National Action Plan on Climate Change.  And India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh explained that India is: "...prepared to take on, voluntarily, unilaterally, mitigation actions as part of a domestic legislative agenda."

Anybody that has followed the negotiations will notice that this is a big shift in the Indian position.  They used be resistant to committing internationally to undertake efforts to reduce their emissions, even though on-the-ground in India they had actually moved on a number fronts to reduce emissions.  Details of these commitments need to be firmed up, but this another new opportunity!

Japan.  The new Japanese government came to the UN and offered internationally to increase their emissions reduction target to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.  This is an important improvement from the offer that the previous government put on the table.

Japan is a highly efficient economy in many respects so this more aggressive target is a positive sign.  It is a new opportunity that provides a much needed boost to the targets that developed countries are committing to!

US.  President Obama spoke before the UN and as NRDC's President stated:

"President Obama clearly understands the urgency of the climate crisis and the benefits to our economy, our health and our security that will come from shifting to a clean energy economy. With his continued engagement the United States can enact strong legislation at home and mobilize the international community to meet this challenge."

This is an opportunity that can be seized by the Senate beginning next week as the debate on the climate bill begins in earnest when a bill is expected to be released by Senator Kerry and Boxer.  A lot of work is occurring behind the scenes in the Senate, so I'm optimistic that a bill can move quickly through the Senate.  Passage of this bill will put the US in a strong position to secure a strong international agreement and seize this opportunity!

Seizing the Opportunity.  These bits of momentum provide an opportunity as world leaders meet in Pittsburgh for the G20.  The question is will they seize this opportunity, build upon it in Pittsburgh, and provide an extra boost for the final stretch of the international negotiations.

Will they commit to move forward the important debate on providing the needed investments in developing countries on clean energy, deforestation, and international adaptation?

I'll be here in Pittsburgh watching this debate and nudging for a clear signal from world leaders that they will bring a commitment to Copenhagen to support the needed investment in developing countries.  And they'll have to provide a clear signal that they are poised to secure a strong agreement in Copenhagen.

]]> China Signals New Efforts to Address their Global Warming Pollution tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.4211 2009-09-23T03:57:42Z 2009-10-03T01:11:35Z Jake Schmidt Countdown to Copenhagen President Hu Jintao of China has just unveiled before the world a new set of actions that China will undertake to curb their global warming pollution.  The remarks were made today as a part of the UN Secretary General's high-level summit on global warming.  The event (as I discussed here) is one part of the critical "climate week" which is aimed at giving a jumpstart to the international negotiations in the final 3 months before Copenhagen.

China has recently become the world's largest emitter of global warming pollution (overtaking the US) so all eyes have been focused on what China will say (and also what President Obama will say since the US is so critical to this debate).  President Hu's speech was touted before the summit by the lead climate change official for China as: "...an important speech...[that] will announce the next policies, measures and actions that China is going to take" (as reported by Reuters). 

This is the kind of hype that usually precedes major policy speeches by US presidents so a lot of people were watching what China would announce.

So what did President Jintao say?  Here are some snippets and some context (full translated remarks are available here):

"...out of a sense of responsibility to its own people and people across the world, China has taken and will continue to take determined and practical steps to tackle this challenge.  China has adopted and is implementing its national climate change program.  This includes mandatory national targets for reducing energy intensity and discharge of major pollutants and increasing forest coverage and the share of renewable energy for the period 2005 through 2010"

As we noted in a recent fact sheet these actions help move China From Crisis to Opportunity: How China is addressing climate change and positioning itself to be a leader in clean energy.  Like anything in life China is a contrast - windmills springing up at a torrential rate and dirty coal plants coming on line at a rapid pace.  So it isn't fair to say that China is taking no action, nor is it fair to say that they have turned the corner on global warming (the story is mixed).

And President Hu went out to say that in the years ahead China will undertake further action:

"...we will intensity our effort to conserve energy and energy efficiency.  We will endeavor to cut CO2 emissions intensity per unit of GDP by a notable margin by 2020 from 2005 levels."

While there was some hope that China would provide even more clarity by outlining the specific number for their intensity improvement, this is a negotiation. China did not outline their numbers but neither did the US.  You can expect more back and forth between the two countries and there will be other opportunities where the numbers may be firmed up (like around the time that President Obama goes to China in November or at the Copenhagen meeting this December).  So stay tuned as the number they commit to is important!

As NRDC's China Program Director notes it isn't clear how this commitment will be translated into domestic "law" in China, but our expectations are that it will be translated into their next 5-year plan.  This often signals an important amount of support in achieving the goal.  And the fact that this was done on the international stage is important for the Chinese as their leaders don't like "losing face".

President Hu went on to outline the next set of actions:

"...vigorously develop renewable energy and nuclear energy.  We will endeavor to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15% by 2020.

...increase forest cover by 40 million hectares and forest stock volume by 1.3 billion cubic meters by 2020 from 2005 levels.

 ...step up efforts for a green economy and low-carbon economy."

While China most people know that China is building a lot of coal-fired power plants, most people don't realize that they are also building a lot of wind power plants (and other renewables).  In 2008, China's wind power capacity doubled for the fourth straight year.

The forestry commitment is also pretty sizeable as it amount to an increase in the forest cover in China by an amount equivalent to the entire State of Montana (as the Associated Press points out).

-----------

For too long, China and the U.S. have hidden behind the other's inaction.  Yet both countries are changing; both countries are beginning to act.  Now there is opening for partnership.  If the U.S. leads by reducing its own global warming pollution, China will take more steps to curb its own pollution.

The negotiations begin now as China has signaled its willingness to act, while at the same time holding back some important details from their offer.

This dynamic is similar to when you are trying to sell your house and you have a buyer that is interested.  Getting a buyer interested is a significant step.  Once they have declared their interest, then you can discuss numbers.  And that is what the U.S. and China will do.  (HT to DD for the great analogy as always).  Let's close the deal...

After all as both President Obama and President Hu stressed: future generations depend on our actions.

]]> Important Week for Global Warming…Some Rays of Hope for Global Efforts tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.4186 2009-09-21T14:39:21Z 2009-10-01T10:47:17Z Jake Schmidt Countdown to Copenhagen Today begins a week dubbed "climate week" because of all the high-level climate discussions that are occurring.  And they just all happen to be occurring in the US at an important time for the US domestic debate to pass a clean energy and climate bill in the US Senate.

The high-level events begin on Tuesday (Sept. 22) with the UN Secretary General hosting an all day session on global warming for Heads of Government from around the world (for more information see here), it continues with a session on deforestation for Heads of Government on Wednesday (Sept. 23), and ends with the G20 Summit in Pittsburg (for more information see here) -- with a lot in between.

Heads of Government from these key countries don't meet often to discuss global warming pollution, so every event where this is on the agenda for Heads of Government is an important opportunity to make progress.  And as I've discussed here, bringing in Heads of Government is critical at this stage of the negotiations if we are to have any chance of securing a strong global agreement in Copenhagen.  Last time Heads of Government from key countries met at the G8 and Major Economies Forum in Italy, some progress was made on a number of important benchmarks of the global effort (as I discussed here).  So there is hope of more to come at these key events.

Time is short before Copenhagen -- about 3 months to the day are left -- so there is a notable sense that things aren't coming together fast enough -- dark clouds appear to be hanging overhead.  Accordingly expectations were high that these high-level events could provide a much needed boost to international efforts -- start to part the clouds and let some sunshine appear.

What gives me a sense of optimism -- besides the fact that regardless of the fluctuations in the political climate the need for clean energy and global warming solutions will remain - are four things about international efforts on global warming that are important to keep in mind.

25th hour (and maybe 26th) is when these negotiations often come together.  This is a high stakes negotiation where everything is intimately woven together.  Countries are unwilling move on one piece as they are waiting for a similar move by another country on a related issue.  This is especially true on one of the key pieces on the agenda for the G20 -- finance/investment for developing countries (see my summary of the negotiation texts for an overview of the key issues - part 1, part 2, and part 3).  At the Major Economies Forum in July, President Obama tasked Finance Ministers to report back at the G20 on progress on this issue so there is hope that some promising signs will emerge from Pittsburgh (and the Obama Administration has shown some more public support in recent days as I discussed here).

As a result, the negotiations often "come down to the wire" as no one is willing to move until they feel like they have moved the other side as much as possible -- the final showdown.  We don't have to look too far back into these negotiations to see an example.  The Bali meeting which launched the two year negotiations towards Copenhagen wasn't resolved until Saturday afternoon the day after the meeting was supposed to end.  And I bet if you asked negotiators -- either before Bali began or at any point during the session -- whether we would get an agreement that looked like the actual outcome they would have said no (including yours truly).

Many times these negotiations only look like agreement can be reached minutes after it is actually reached.

The US is making progress domestically to curb global warming pollution.  The last time the world was on the cusp of an international agreement to address global warming -- in 1997 around the Kyoto Protocol negotiations -- domestic efforts to put in place limits on US global warming pollution had made very little progress.  In fact, some would argue that the US was on its heels before Kyoto as the Senate had sent a signal with "mixed" domestic support for what would ultimately emerge.

While things haven't changed as far as we need them to in the US, let's not forget about a couple of important changes that have occurred that make the US poised for action more than at any time in the past, including the:

  • Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant and the US Environmental Protection Agency has taken steps to control CO2 as required by US law pursuant to this decision (as my colleague David Doniger discussed here and here);
  • US stimulus made a down payment on the necessary investment in clean energy and global warming solutions (as we discussed here); and
  • House of Representatives passed clean energy and global warming legislation that would require US emissions to decline annually through 2050.

No one wants a repeat of Kyoto where the US couldn't build the domestic support to implement what it committed to internationally.  That is why we (and many others) are pushing for the US Senate to take action before Copenhagen -- we need to ensure that the US actually lives up to its promises.

Developing countries are taking action to curb emissions and providing hints of more to come.  Over the last 2 years, there has been a sizeable shift in how developing countries came to the international negotiations.  Major developing countries used to say: "we only act when the industrialized world takes even deeper action".  But now most major emerging economies have taken action to curb their emissions and proposed or hinted at more to come.  For example:

  • China has made a number of investments to reduce their emissions (as we summarized here), have hinted at what further steps they might undertake (as I've discussed here), and have signaled that President Hu Jintao will announce specific actions this week (as Reuters notes here);
  • South Korea has proposed a range of absolute emissions targets they'll take and are developing the domestic laws to implement that target (as I discussed here);
  • Mexico is taking serious steps to have a domestic emissions trading system for key sectors of the economy in place before 2012 and signaled a commitment to a deep cut by 2050 (as I discussed here);
  • South Africa has signaled that they'll have their emissions "peak and decline" around 2020/2025 and are beginning the national dialogue to firm up the steps they'll take to achieve that aim (as I've discussed here).
  • Brazil has committed to have their deforestation rate decline to more than 80% of today's rate by 2020 (as I discussed here) and has shown some continual progress in reversing their deforestation trend.
  • India who in the past as been ardent that they won't take action unless the industrialized world takes even deeper cuts, has actually undertaken some serious efforts domestically and recently has shown that they'll do even more domestically (as my colleague Anjali Jaiswal summarized here).

Almost all developed countries have proposed deeper emissions cuts.  The European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and Japan have all committed to deeper emissions reduction targets (with a signal from the new Japanese government that they'll go even deeper than their predecessor).  Two notable exceptions that haven't committed to deeper cuts are Russia (see here for their weak opening offer) and Canada (as noted in this call for greater action from Canada).  And while a number of these countries have to firm up their targets and their domestic laws to achieve those targets, these countries have committed in advance of Copenhagen (very different than prior to Kyoto where most hadn't proposed anything or taken steps to implement domestic actions).

------------------------------

It is easy to feel like the world's efforts to address global warming are under a dark cloud characterized by not enough progress and big unknowns in key countries, but some rays of sunshine are appearing in key countries.

And it is these rays that will have to be pieced together at the 25th hour in Copenhagen.

So will the forecast coming out of climate week improve the outlook for Copenhagen?  Let's hope as a lot is riding on the world's efforts to solve global warming (I'll be in NY and Pittsburgh to see first hand how it's looking).

]]> Coming Global Warming Limits in China…some news with hints tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.3494 2009-06-08T05:00:00Z 2009-06-18T01:34:02Z Jake Schmidt News coming out of China provides some hints that they might adopt a domestic limit to reduce their global warming.  As China Daily is reporting:

" China will put in place carbon dioxide emissions targets for its economic and social development programs, the central government has promised.

It also signals that China may be considering national goals for carbon dioxide levels when it maps its 12th five-year national development plan (2011-15)."

The central government announced the plan at the State Council meeting that was chaired by Premier Wen Jiabao.  The State Council is the highest executive and administrative body in China and is equivalent to China's cabinet.  So this announcement was made at a very high-level within the Chinese government.

Inclusion in the "5-year" plan would be significant as this is the governments overarching strategy.  Achieving the objectives of this plan becomes the main focus of the central government as achieving them often becomes a metric for determining whether or not government officials move up in the ranks.  And, inclusion of such a goal in the 5-year plan drives the implementation of Chinese government policies, regulations, programs, etc. over the course of the 5-years.  This has occurred as a result of the inclusion of an energy-intensity target in China's current 5-year plan -- to cut energy intensity by 20% between 2005 and 2010 -- as the government has implemented a number of policies and regulations to achieve it.

If you haven't noticed, getting an agreement with China on global warming pollution is at the top of the US international global warming agenda.  Key members of Congress were just in China and now some of the Obama Administration's key policymakers on global warming are headed to China -- including senior global warming officials from the Department of State, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Treasury Department, and the President's Science Advisor.

So this announcement comes at a critical time as it provides a potential opening to firm up a bilateral agreement on global warming between the US and China.  This has been in the works since President Obama was elected as signaled by Secretary Clinton when she went to China in February.  As Special Climate Envoy Todd Stern recently said:

"Certainly no deal will be possible if we don't find a way forward with China."

NRDC made a series of recommendations on actions that the US and China should do together, including address the key sticking points to reaching a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009.  While the international global warming negotiations are focused on starting to flesh out the "text" of the agreement (as I discussed in Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3), getting agreement between the US and China has become an even a stronger "key to success" in getting a strong international agreement to address climate.  The text can't have "life" without these two countries resolving some differences.

High on the agenda of this US delegation headed to China needs to be three key things to lay the groundwork for agreement with China on global warming.  The US and China need to get agreement on the:

  1. Actions that will be taken to reduce their global warming pollution. Key to this in the US will be passing a bill on global warming pollution by Congress this year. And this effort has gained some serious momentum with the passage of the House Energy and Commerce Committee bill. The news that China will place limits on emissions provides some hints that China might be moving in the direction of taking an emissions reduction limit (although the exact structure would likely vary from the US approach in the near-term).
  2. Form of that commitment. As I've discussed here, there is an emerging debate with some progress on the "binding" international nature of commitments. The US has proposed binding international commitments for all countries. China has been silent in their formal submission. However, they have been reluctant in the past to internationally binding commitments but have shown a willingness to implement domestically "binding" actions.
  3. Reporting and verification of actions and emissions. The negotiating text contains some proposals for how that would occur, but as I discussed here there is a focus on the commitment of developing countries to "nationally appropriate mitigation actions" with those actions reported to a registry. The US has proposed annual emissions inventories for all countries (including developing countries) as a way to get more real time information. And there is debate around having the developing country actions internationally verified as a part of the agreement -- although a number of developing countries are currently opposed to that. Having China and the US resolve this difference is critical.

Not to hold up to high expectations, but we need one of those "Nixon goes to China" moments when the dynamic between the two countries completely shifts.  We need a moment where the two sides break the stalemate on global warming.  This moment would have a huge ripple effect on the rest of the negotiations to Copenhagen and on our path to secure an international effort to solve global warming.

Both the US and China need such an agreement to materialize soon!  Each for different reasons, but there are strong reasons why both need a mutual agreement on this important issue.  And there are some openings emerging that this isn't just wishful thinking. 

So stay tuned for more news out of China and the US.

]]> US & China to Hold High-Level Dialogue on Global Warming tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.2780 2009-02-23T17:15:00Z 2009-03-05T13:04:05Z Jake Schmidt Secretary Clinton announced in Beijing that the US and China have agreed in principle to undertake a periodic high-level strategic and economic dialogue.  She and Treasury Secretary Geithner will undertake the dialogue with their Chinese counterparts.  The dialogue will be finalized April 2nd in London when President Obama and President Hu Jintao meet at the G-20.

This is an extremely positive step as these two key players are critical to move the world away from the brink and towards a sustainable path.  The US, under Treasury Secretary Paulson, initiated a Ten Year Energy and Environment Cooperation, but it never had the attention and focus from the highest levels in the US government.  And, the US under the past Administration had no strong actions to bring forward so they were never viewed as credible by the Chinese. 

This dynamic is now changing with President Obama signaling that the US will act to address global warming.  US leadership will be crucial as the Chinese will now be "sitting across the table" from a party that is serious.  I hope that this changed dynamic will "bear more fruit" from the US-China dialogue. 

And global warming will be at the center of this dialogue, as Secretary Clinton stressed:

"[A]mong the most important issues that we will discuss together is clean energy and climate change, and what the United States and China can do together." 

While no details were released on the key actions that will be undertaken in this dialogue, it will be essential that this dialogue not simply result in vague declarations, press releases, and photo-ops.  Instead it needs to result in concrete action by both sides in order to build trust and ensure that it brings these two countries closer together in finding solutions to global warming. 

The set of nine recommendations that NRDC released in advance of Secretary Clinton's trip could form the basis of the ensuing work.  These actions will need to be initiated quickly if we are going to turn the corner on global warming.

Some hints of things to come were outlined in the remarks of Special Envoy Todd Stern at a speech in Beijing:

"In our view, nothing is more important for dealing with this threat [climate change] than a U.S.-China partnership turning their full attention to it.  Together, we produce about 40 percent of worldwide emissions, but together we can do great things.

We can engage in joint research and development.  We can collaborate on projects involving renewable energy, efficiency in buildings, and the capture and storage of CO2 from coal plants.  We can mobilize large-scale investment, and share technology, and we can discover the new technologies that will build a safer and more sustainable future."

The dynamic on global warming is changing in each country as the Obama Administration, leaders in Congress, leading companies, and others are calling for strong action on global warming.  And the Chinese have now openly shown a new willingness to help solve global warming.  As China put it in their recent "white paper":

"The developing countries, while developing their economies and fighting poverty, should actively...reduce their emissions to the lowest degree..."

We need these two countries to come together quickly if we are going to be successful in getting a strong international agreement in Copenhagen and strong actions to cut global warming pollution in the years to come.  It can be done.  The clock is ticking!

]]> Reengaging China on Climate Change - Some Recommendations tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.2745 2009-02-18T16:45:00Z 2009-02-28T12:24:02Z If you've picked up a paper, listened to a radio program, watched a TV program, or read a policy paper on global warming recently you would surely have heard that China and the US are the two biggest sources of... Jake Schmidt If you've picked up a paper, listened to a radio program, watched a TV program, or read a policy paper on global warming recently you would surely have heard that China and the US are the two biggest sources of global warming pollution -- accounting for over 40% of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.  And that the path that these two players take to address global warming is one of the keys to either sustainability or catastrophe.

Lack of movement to address global warming in either country has been used as a rationale for lack of action by the other side -- some US policymakers have suggested the US can't move forward if China isn't moving as well and vice versa.  Some have even called this a "suicide pact".

The time for excuses and finger point is over.  After all, we have 10 months to get a strong international agreement in Copenhagen to move the world away from the brink and towards a sustainable path.

Secretary of State Clinton is going to China later this week and global warming will be on her agenda.  This is a great sign that the new Administration is going to make engagement with China on these issues a priority as they didn't get the attention in the US-China dialogue over the last 8 years that they need.

While the issues surrounding US and China on global warming are pretty evident, what to do about this dilemma is less than obvious.  What should the US and China engage on after this initial trip from Secretary Clinton?

Well our China Program (we have about 20 people working full-time in Beijing) and our climate team decided to put together a set of detailed recommendations for how the US and China should engage on climate change and energy now that there are new opportunities in both countries (see for example: Changing Climate in China?; President-elect Obama Signals He Will Restore American Leadership on Global Warming; and China and the US: Sticking to a truly "green" stimulus). 

In a set of recommendations (a sort of "street map" with a clear guide) -- Strengthening US-China Climate Change and Energy Engagement: Recommendations for Leaders and Policymakers in the US and China -- we outline a nine step plan that these two countries can do to fast-track a massive reengagement on global warming and energy issues and increase the likelihood of a strong agreement in Copenhagen.

Many of these recommendations are successful things that our China Program is already doing on-the-ground in various parts of China.  They take the opportunities and stumbling blocks that our experience in China and the international negotiations has seen first hand and accelerates and deepens existing efforts.  

I'll spare you the details of all the recommendations (so you actually read them), but here are the main themes:

  1. Engage in serious bilateral meetings on climate change and address the key sticking points to reach meaningful agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009
  2. Establish a US-China forum on climate change strategies that promote green jobs and economic recovery
  3. Mobilize the untapped potential of energy efficiency
  4. Assist in the deployment of renewable energy sources and technologies
  5. Promote low-carbon, high-efficiency vehicles, fuels, transportation systems, and community development
  6. Expand research and investment on carbon capture and storage technology
  7. Improve greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and data transparency
  8. Conduct co-benefit analysis on GHG emissions controls
  9. Invest in regular exchanges and sharing of expertise to improve enforcement of environmental law and energy efficiency standards

All of these are essential for putting these two countries on a path to addressing global warming, but let me highlight a couple that I think are really important for the international global warming negotiations (my colleagues Barbara Finamore and Alex Wang will provide more insights on other key elements).

Engage in serious bilateral meetings on climate change and address the key sticking points to reaching a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009.  President Obama and President Hu Jintao should discuss global warming at their first bilateral meeting, preferably to be held in February or March of 2009.  This meeting should kick-start a series of high-level bilateral discussions throughout 2009 on the concrete steps that the US and China can undertake to reduce their global warming pollution now and in the future, and the key sticking points that need to be overcome for both parties to sign on to a meaningful international climate change agreement in Copenhagen.  Is Secretary Clinton laying the groundwork for such a dialogue?  Let's hope!

This high-level dialogue needs to be more than just broad declarations, press releases, and photo-ops, but a "roll-up" their sleeves process to get into the details of the tricky issues.  They could start with a couple of things that keep coming up in the negotiations and that need an agreed path forward:

  • the Chinese government's desire for greater access to cleaner, more efficient technologies;
  • the US desire to export green technologies while maintaining intellectual property rights;
  • the need for both countries to commit to measurable, reportable, verifiable, and appropriate reductions in GHG emissions; and
  • the role of sectoral approaches where specific emission reduction actions are taken in key sectors of the economy, such as electricity and major energy-intensive industrial sectors (as I've discussed here and here).

Any structures agreed upon in these bilateral discussions should be brought into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as this bilateral engagement is meant to support, not replace, the UNFCCC.

Improve greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and data transparency.  Improving the transparency, quality, and frequency of GHG emissions inventories will be a cornerstone of a strong international climate agreement to be reached in Copenhagen so making significant headway on this debate will be necessary.

Invest in improved enforcement.  Willingness and a strong capability to implement actions on the ground to reduce global warming pollution will be a key building block to a strong international effort.  After all, domestic action and enforcement is a critical element of all international agreements.

A Brighter Future for US and China on Global Warming?

The US and China are at a crucial juncture in how they are going to shape their economies, position their companies and technologies for the 21st century, and address global warming.  Action must be taken in both countries immediately if these countries and the world are to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.  Fortunately there are huge opportunities for those countries and companies that lead.

Implementation of these recommendations by themselves will not solve the global warming challenge.  And taking these actions won't address all the challenges of getting a strong international agreement to address global warming.  But they can make a huge down payment.

]]> China and US Agreeing to a Sectoral Approach to Global Warming? tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/jschmidt//134.2452 2009-01-10T02:38:25Z 2009-01-19T22:27:25Z Jake Schmidt Andy Revkin has a DotEarth post on: Can U.S., China Team Up on Climate, Energy?  Well he didn't exactly ask it directly of me, but I'll take the liberty of responding.  The answer is YES and also that THEY MUST.

I think it is a very good sign that folks in the inner circle of President-elect Obama are signaling that they will make the US-China portion of the global warming challenge a top priority.  After all, these two countries combined account for around 40% of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion and over a third of energy consumption in the world.  So "cracking that nut" is probably close to 60% of the challenge of getting a strong global agreement in Copenhagen (the remainder being made up of the targets of the other developed countries, followed closely by deforestation reductions and reductions in other emerging economies), which I discussed in: My Resolution to Help "Green the Planet" this Year: Get an International Climate Agreement. 

So that is why NRDC and a group of other environmental NGOs recommended in our transition recommendations that we "beef up" our energy and environment dialogue with China (with more than just words but deeds).  Luckily there is an existing dialogue -- the US-China Ten Year Framework on Energy and Environment -- that creates a strong forum for action.  Now all it needs is a President that utilizes it to begin serious discussions between the US and China on global warming (which we now have with President-elect Obama).  For more details see my post on Detailed Actions to Restore America's Global Leadership on Global Warming.

I think sectoral approaches offer a huge promise as a part of this China and US dynamic (as I discussed how the international debate can Evolve from "Offsets" to Sectoral Approaches for Developing Countries based upon a soon to be released report.  In fact, this approach has garnered significant interest in the international climate negotiations and even China signaled a strong "openness" to engage in this approach in the post-2012 agreement as they signaled at the climate negotiations in Ghana in August 2008 when countries Started to Read from the Same Book on Sectoral Approaches for Developing Countries.

Under this approach, each of the emerging economies would negotiate agreed-upon "stretch targets" on a sectoral basis for key sectors -- such as electricity and energy-intensive industries.  The initial effort -- the "domestic effort" -- would be financed with internal resources and the remaining reduction would be financed through international assistance (see Figure). 

 Sectoral Mechanism Example

However, I think someone gave Andy Revkin some bum advice when they suggested:

"Chances of a broader, deeper set of mandatory targets for cutting the gases are very low, by many accounts. Chances are much higher for countries to agree to cooperate on a menu of climate-friendly initiatives, say, within particular sectors like electricity generation or manufacturing aluminum."

YES, BUT...

There is a growing agreement that a sectoral approach for electricity and major industries is an attractive approach, but these are only seriously being discussed for major emerging economies -- NOT DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.  The developed countries have continued to agree that these approaches won't replace hard economy-wide targets in their economies as they agreed in Ghana and since (see my post on sectoral approaches from Ghana which discusses these points).  So while sectoral approaches are a serious option for the post-2012 international climate negotiations, and I think need to be a strong part of the US-China dialogue on global warming, they are more the strategy for how China will reduce its global warming pollution (but not a strategy that the US will undertake as a replacement for hard economy-wide targets).  The US is likely to negotiate with China around this approach and China will likely argue for technology and financial assistance to help support a sectoral agreement so there is a strong role for a US-China agreement on this approach.

So promising signs that the new Administration will make engagement with China on global warming one of their top priorities and it appears that sectoral approaches will be a key part of that negotiation.

]]>