Jake Schmidt's Blog: Solving Global Warming

Tools for Supporting International Action on Global Warming: American Power Act

2010-05-14T02:04:38Z

The draft of the American Power Act is now out (see NRDC's first read summary of the entire bill). The core global warming pollution limits in the bill, covering all major pollution sources, are a solid foundation for Senate legislation to put a final bill on President Obama’s desk this year. So how does this legislative proposal address the critical international investments that aid our international efforts to address global warming?

The bill includes most of the key tools to aid the world in addressing global warming but doesn’t provide the necessary funding to aid developing countries in deploying clean energy, reducing deforestation, and adapting to the impacts of climate change (as a coalition of 24 environmental, development, and religious groups has highlighted). The bill contains broad authorizing language for a program to reduce deforestation, provides for only a small and belated effort to help the most vulnerable developing countries, and doesn’t have any program for clean energy exports. Failure to provide the president with the needed tools to promote international cooperation will prove penny-wise but pound-foolish (this is one of the carbon program problems that must be fixed).

It is critical that the US become a strong component of international efforts to address global warming by passing a climate and energy bill this year. To aid in achieving strong international action and providing the US with the necessary tools to support other countries in addressing this challenge such a bill needs several key components:

Firm limits on global warming pollution – This depends on the stringency of the limit (A) and the overall environmental integrity, as my colleague discussed in more detail and I’ll discuss in the context of the international offsets (B).
Properly designed incentives to encourage, nudge, and push strong actions from other countries – How the international offsets (B) are designed can play a critical role, but it is also important to design specific programs to reduce deforestation emissions (C) and deploy clean energy in developing countries (D). And there are some other tools which can help nudge other countries to take action (E).
Support for the most vulnerable countries to adapt to the impacts that are already occurring and that will occur – Global warming is already impacting the most vulnerable developing countries so we need a dedicated program to aid these countries in adaptation (F).

A. Firm Limits on Global Warming Pollution

At the core of the US engagement in an international agreement is a firm limit on global warming pollution which steadily declines and drives clean energy investments both in the US and elsewhere. The bill creates greenhouse gas reduction targets for the sectors that are covered by emission limits, commencing in 2013 (Sec. 703):

17% below 2005 levels in 2020 (4% below 1990 levels);
42% below 2005 levels in 2030 (32% below 1990 levels); and
83% below 2005 levels in 2050 (80% below 1990 levels).

Overall reductions will potentially be larger because of the requirement that international offsets provide "extra reductions" to make overall progress every time offsets are used. Starting in 2018, a company using international offsets must obtain 1.25 tons of those offsets to cover a ton of its own emissions – the extra quarter ton increases the total carbon pollution reduction achieved.

B. International carbon offset access rules (Sec. 751-763).

International offsets will be issued only to developing countries that are part of a multilateral or bilateral agreement with the US. An International Offsets Integrity Advisory Board will provide recommendations on the international rules and the EPA, in consultation with other US government agencies, will implement a set of rules to assure that offset credits are earned only for real and permanent actions that would not happen anyway and won’t simply shift to other locations. These rules would also need to establish a process to “accept and respond to” comments from the public, providing an important “citizen” watchdog function to the proper implementation of the rules. At least every 5 years the program is to be reviewed to ensure the environmental integrity of the rules.

The program creates a framework where offsets generally can be produced only by countries that adopt policies to reduce emissions across an entire sector of the economy and only for countries that take some action on their own. These are important principles to retain as it helps ensure that we evolve from "offsets" to sectoral approaches for developing countries – i.e., that offsets are aiding in reducing global emissions not simply shifting reductions from the US to other countries. There are transitions and some exceptions (which I’ll note), but that general framework applies to the majority of the four offset categories outlined in the bill.

1. Sector-based program. The bill would have the EPA Administrator identify sectors of specific countries where emissions credits can be generated only when an entire sector of the economy in the country reduces its emissions – a sectoral approach. That means that a country can’t produce an offset (get credit) for building a windmill, while not simultaneously getting a debit for building a coal-fired power plant – the net emissions of the sector have to be reduced before an offset can be generated. There are a number of criteria that will be used to determine if a country and sector will be eligible for crediting only on a sectoral basis, which will lead to an offset program where key sectors in the largest emitting countries will only be able to generate offsets if their entire sector reduces emissions:

The country has comparatively high emissions or greater levels of economic development; and
That it would be a sector covered by the US cap (e.g., electricity, industrial, transportation, etc.).

Credits for these sectors in the country shall be on the basis of an established performance level based upon certain criteria to ensure that the program produces real reductions. These performance levels shall be established at a level lower than the business-as-usual level, take into account nationally appropriate actions of the country, and be consistent with a declining limit to reduce global emissions.

2. Deforestation. Offset credits can be generated from national deforestation emissions reductions with a transition for “state/province” systems, as I'll discuss in more detail below.

3. Offsets from an International System that meet the requirements outlined in the bill and as implemented in the US rules. Offsets may be issued from an international body (e.g., the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) if they meet the same requirements as established in the bill and designed by EPA. This will provide an important safeguard against less stringent rules and an incentive for the international community, working with the US negotiators, to design strong provisions for international credits (but the onus is on the international rules to reform along the lines in the bill). Starting in 2016, this international system would have to apply sector-based rules in order to be eligible to access the US market.

4. Supplemental/Other offset types. Sectors not covered by the sectoral regulation or the deforestation program may be available to generate credits, if the Administrator determines the offset category eligible and there are higher than expected program costs (the “price collar” is met for a period of time). These potential offset sources would be subject to strict rules before they can generate credits, and won’t necessarily be designed to require that the entire sector reduce emissions before they generate offsets. This would most likely apply to such sources as agriculture, forest replanting, and waste management.

C. Incentives for reductions in deforestation emissions.

Deforestation accounts for around 15% of the world’s emissions and is generally considered a relatively lower cost emission reduction option. So included a targeted set of tools to combat the loss of the tropical forests is central in our efforts to address global warming. Unfortunately the draft bill contains only funding for one of the key incentive mechanisms to address deforestation emissions—carbon offsets for credible deforestation reductions – but fails to include a dedicated source of investment to ensure that countries develop robust systems, don’t shift emissions to other countries, and achieve early reductions in deforestation. We need both the set aside of dedicated resources and strong rules governing offsets to ensure that efforts to reduce deforestation are actually leading to global warming pollution cuts across the world and that the offsets generated aren’t “subprime” (a point recognized by major companies, farmers, ranchers, and environmental groups from across the spectrum, as I discussed here and here).

1. Early investment in market readiness, early emissions reductions, and ensuring an environmentally sound system (Sec. 5004). The draft bill contains program language which could be mobilized towards early investments in designing a credible approach to reducingdeforestation emissions, but provides no dedicated resources towards implementing such a program.

The program (if it were funded) is designed to achieve emissions reductions, prevent emissions leakage where deforestation shifts from participating to non participating countries, and prepare developing countries to participate in international offset systems for deforestation by building the necessary tools for a credible system. The program would support a variety of activities, including national and subnational emissions reduction activities, forest governance, illegal logging prevention, and enforcement.

Funds generated through this program may be distributed to an international fund to reduce deforestation emissions or through bilateral assistance. The program is guided by an interagency body (which oversees the adaptation investments as well) made up of the key US government officials, in order to ensure that the program is focused, targeted, and effective (Sec. 5003).

2. Carbon credits for credible deforestation reductions. International offsets may be issued from efforts that reduce deforestation emissions. The discussion draft allows offsets to be generated for national level deforestation reductions and state/province level reductions for a transition period of 5 years. Importantly, countries that generate credits must have established a baseline that is based on real historical data on deforestation rates, declines to zero net emissions after 20 years, accounts for nationally appropriate mitigation commitments, and covers all significant sources of deforestation emissions (no playing around with definitions of forests to avoid covering emissions sources).

Eligible countries also are required to have developed a "land use or forest sector strategic plan" that prepares the country for efforts to address deforestation and encourages a holistic government approach to the management of its lands. Countries that receive investments must have protections for indigenous and forest dependent peoples, ensure the preservation of biodiversity, and develop transparent and equitable sharing of benefits to relevant populations on-the-ground. The program can be extended to other sources of forestry emissions (e.g., degradation and peatland carbon loss, as appropriate).

D. Incentives for clean energy export to developing countries that take on their own commitment.

A large share of the investments that will drive future developing country energy production and use will be built in the very near future. We must aid these countries in deploying the state of the art technologies that will be spurred by the US (and global) drive for clean energy. The draft bill doesn’t include either program language or dedicated funding to assist developing countries in deploying clean energy. It is important to fix this as the draft moves through the process as such a program will be an important component of efforts to assist developing countries in reducing their emissions. And such a program with funding would also benefit the US as it would:

encourage countries to adopt policies and measures that substantially reduce emissions;
assist in the widespread deployment of technologies that reduce emissions; and
increase the demand for clean energy products and open up new markets for US companies.

E. Nudging major emitting economies to reduce their emissions and improve transparency around their actions

The draft bill includes a “border adjustment” (Sec. 775-778) and a reporting provision for major emitting countries. The border adjustment requires that importers buy carbon allowances when bringing in commodities such as steel, aluminum, or cement from countries that fail to adopt their own carbon control programs. The border adjustment would take effect in 2025 to the extent carbon-related competitive gaps remain with other countries and are not covered by the allowance rebates (as my colleague has discussed). For example, the Canadian federal government has said it will follow what the United States does on climate change. What is clear is that the United States is expecting for trading partners like Canada to have equivalent systems in place for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. For Canada, that means that the tar sands oil industry would need to abide by a Canadian cap on greenhouse gas emissions at least equivalent to the cuts in the US bill.

The other provision requires that an assessment is conducted every 2-years on the climate and energy policies of the 5 largest emitting countries that are emerging markets (Sec. 5007). The assessment is to be conducted by the State Department with the Interagency Board (Sec. 5003) made up of all the key agencies. This provision would provide the US with a complementary assessment to what was agreed in the Copenhagen Accord on emissions reporting and transparency (as I’ve discussed).

F. Developing country adaptation and reducing national security threats (Section 5005).

The draft explicitly recognizes that the impacts of climate change are likely to “exacerbate competition and conflict over agricultural, vegetative, marine and water resources;” and increase “displacement of people, poverty and hunger within developing countries”. To address this the bill establishes the only dedicated source of international investments by setting aside 0.75% of allowances in 2019, rising to 3% in 2030.

This investment will provide some needed resources to help reduce future national security threats expected to arise from the impacts of global warming (as the Defense Department Quadrennial Review finds) and help the most vulnerable populations adapt to global warming.

The draft establishes an International Climate Change Adaptation and Global Security Program headed by the Secretary of State in consultation with USAID, Treasury and the EPA. The program requires that local communities be engaged through the planning and decision making processes for adaptation programs and provides assistance to countries most vulnerable to climate change and the people most at risk in those countries (women, children, the impoverished and indigenous groups). Assistance may come in a variety of forms:

investments in adaptation planning and research,
renewable and efficient energy technologies,
access to data and early warning systems for storms and disasters,
protection of natural ecosystems like Mangroves which can buffer against storms, prevent coastal erosion and promote fisheries production.

Agricultural and fisheries production in developing countries is expected to decline as a result of climate change, and the draft bill allows for additional support for agricultural development and emergency responses to food insecurity, as well as investments in production techniques to “raise yields through low-input, sustainable, and biodiverse methods”.

Multilateral funds or institutions receiving funding have to meet certain program requirements. These programs have to be governed by a body that includes representatives from the most vulnerable developing countries, protects local communities and indigenous peoples in areas that receive funding, and provides an annual report on the support activities.

*******************

The core components to assist the US in working with the world to address global warming are included in the discussion draft, unfortunately the bill does not provide dedicated funding to aid our international cooperation in the fight against climate change. It does provide the important possibility of creating international funding by giving the President the discretion to set aside up to 5% of allowances for international actions if there is a strong international agreement, but this is uncertain. Making this permanent would provide greater certainty to both the domestic and international community.

The lack of dedicated funding is unfortunate as providing a targeted investment in supporting developing countries was a pledge made by President Obama at the Copenhagen Climate Summit (as I discussed here and as my colleague discussed here) and proved critical in moving other countries towards international agreement.

This is not charity, these are strategic investments which create opportunities for the export of clean energy technologies abroad, create US jobs, build the necessary capacity to ensure the credibility of the deforestation offset system, protect farmers and ranchers here in the US, reduce the national security threats of undue impacts on countries, and assist in solving the global nature of the challenge (as I’ve discussed). Or as President Obama put it:

“Providing this assistance is not only a humanitarian imperative - it's an investment in our common security” [emphasis added].

So let’s be sure that these critical investments are secured as the climate and energy bills move through the Senate and onto the President’s desk.

Now is the Time to Shift World Bank Resources to Clean Energy

2010-05-11T13:10:01Z

The World Bank has just announced its intent to seek $86 billion for a general capital increase (the GCI) from its donor countries (see World Bank press release). It is time for the World Bank to become a full part of the solution to global warming, not part of the problem and part of the solution at the same time. The World Bank needs to seize this opportunity to shift its energy investments to clean energy. The US should only approve a contribution towards the Bank’s general capital increase if it secures a firm commitment to transition to clean energy.

With the request of a general capital increase from the Bank, individual donor countries will now need to agree to fund this increase and commit to provide specific amounts. In the case of the U.S., the Treasury Department requests the funding, Congress would then need to authorize and ultimately approve a possible U.S. contribution. We expect such a request in the coming weeks.

World Bank is Not Doing Enough to Support Clean Energy Lending. With over $8.2 billion in energy investments around the world last year the World Bank has a significant influence on developing country energy investments. In 2009, the World Bank estimates that 40% of its energy sector lending was in “low carbon energy”*—with energy efficiency and renewables** accounting for 21% and 17% respectively . While the share of “low carbon energy” has increased in the past from only 17% in 2003, fossil fuels are still a large share of the Bank’s energy investments. The Bank Information Center calculates that from 2007-2009 fossil fuels still made up over 48% of the World Bank’s energy lending, while 35% of their energy loans were for energy efficiency and renewables (excluding large hydro).

To put this energy investment in context, the total lending for energy efficiency and renewables** in 2009 was $3.1 billion and the recent coal-fired power plant approved by the World Bank for South Africa was $3 billion – so a single fossil project was the size of all of their energy efficiency and renewable investments in 2009. While the South African’s proposed that they would come back to the Bank for a $1.25 billion loan for emissions reduction actions and they did package $260 million for renewable energy as a part of the Eskom loan, this combined energy efficiency and renewable energy package would amount to 33% of the total energy loan to South Africa – less than the modest 40% share that the Bank has achieved for its entire energy lending of late.

At the same time, the World Bank is working to position itself as a leader in providing clean sustainable energy to the poor. As part of their mission to fight poverty they see a strong role for the Bank in helping deliver energy access for the 1.5 billion people that don’t have access to electricity. Those are worthy objectives that we support. But achieving this aim doesn’t have to be at the expense of putting those same populations at risk of severe impacts on their development which will come from global warming.

Commitments to Address Global Warming and Phase-Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies Must Shape Decisions on the GCI. Governments around the world must consider the general capital increase request in light of the Bank’s recent performance in the area of low carbon sustainable energy projects, the commitments made by world leaders to address global warming, and the commitment by the G20 to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies. In light of the World Bank’s recent foray into lending for a South African coal-fired power plant, the Bank needs to do better on energy sector investments. A point formally outlined in the US response to this loan.

Following from the Copenhagen Climate Summit over 120 governments formally associated with the Copenhagen Accord –committing to move to a global low carbon economy – and over 75 countries formally registered specific actions that they would take to reduce emissions. These same countries are both the donors to and recipients of World Bank funding so this commitment should presumably guide their World Bank strategy.

And the 20 developed and developing countries that make up the G20 committed at their last Summit to: rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption (as I discussed here). Continuing to subsidize fossil fuel projects through the World Bank or other multilateral development banks would go against such a commitment.

These are commitments and context which should not be taken lightly or ignored.

The general capital increase should not be approved without clear energy reforms from the Bank. When the Bank announced its request for the general capital increase it did mention climate change in its areas for strategic focus, but it didn’t address the call to condition capital increases in sustainable energy financing as urged by over 100 environmental, faith, women’s, indigenous and development organizations throughout the world, including the Natural Resources Defense Council.

In a statement these groups called for international financial institutions to stop using public resources to subsidize the fossil fuel industry. The statement said:

“we call on governments to not support a general capital increase for any part of the World Bank Group unless the Bank Group ends support for all fossil fuel projects (other than assistance with transition such as mine closure) that do not have as their sole purpose energy access for the poor. Fossil fuel projects that expand energy access for the poor should only be supported after a full examination of all costs--including damages to public health, welfare and the environment--of the project and any new renewable and efficiency alternatives demonstrates that they are the best alternative for delivering energy services to the poor.

Until such policies are approved, countries should direct funds requested by the Bank and other institutions for general capital increases to other financing mechanisms for supporting sustainable development, poverty reduction and clean energy.”

We need clear commitments (in writing and practice) that the World Bank is truly turning to clean energy investments. Right now the World Bank is developing an energy strategy, which will guide their future energy lending. Until commitments to truly shift to clean energy are ensured, the US and other donors should withhold commitments to the World Bank’s general capital increase.

It is time for the World Bank to truly become a part of the solution to address global warming.

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

This post was written with my colleague Heather Allen.

* Defined as new renewable energy, energy efficiency, and hydropower.

**Excluding hydro larger than 10MW.

Illegal Logging in Indonesia: Environmental, Economic, & Social Costs Outlined in a New Report

2010-05-04T13:00:00Z

Illegal logging has a huge impact on the loss of tropical forests in the key countries that account for the vast majority of deforestation (as I discussed here). These forests are being lost at the rate of two football fields a minute and contribute the same amount of global warming pollution as all of the world’s transportation emissions, so stopping forest loss is critical to our efforts to address global warming. And no country is as important in these efforts as Indonesia (Brazil and Indonesia are the two largest deforesting countries).

A new report from labor and environmental organizations – the Blue Green Alliance, NRDC, United Steel Workers, Sierra Club, and Rainforest Action Network – looks at the environmental, economic, and social cost of the loss of Indonesia’s rainforests from illegal logging.

Here are some snippets from the report.

Indonesia’s forests are large and are being lost at alarming rates. Indonesia’s forests cover approximately 463,300 square miles, slightly smaller than the forests of Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Indonesia’s forests are being lost at significant rates, which results in Indonesia’s global warming pollution ranked as 5th largest in the world (accounting for about 5% of the world’s emissions). Between 1990 and 2005, approximately 108,110 square miles of Indonesian forest disappeared (an area larger than the State of Colorado), 77% of which were virgin forest (see graph for a visual of this loss).

Illegal logging is a major contributor to the loss of Indonesia’s forests. A 2007 United Nations Environment Program report estimated that 73-88% of timber logged in Indonesia is illegally sourced. More recent estimates place the figure at a lower, but still troubling rate of 40-55%. And this illegal logging is not only costing the environment, but also the Indonesian people. It is costing the Indonesian government an estimated $2 billion per year due to corruption, uncollected taxes, unacknowledged subsidies, and general poor management of resources.

Consumer appetite for pulp, paper, furniture, and palm oil (which is used for biofuels and in commodities such as margarine, toothpaste, chocolate, and soap), in nations such as the U.S., the European Union, Japan, China, and India are fueling the loss of Indonesia’s deforestation. For example in 2007, 45% of Indonesia's wood exports went to the US, Europe, and China.*

We can and must take steps to address this loss. Luckily the Indonesian government seems focused on addressing this issue to an extent that hasn’t been witnessed in the past. As a part of the Copenhagen Accord, they committed to cut their global warming pollution by 26% by 2020 from business-as-usual levels (as we tracked here) – much of which will need to be achieved from reduced deforestation as it accounts for 80% of Indonesia’s emissions. So there is some political momentum within Indonesia and we need to assist/nudge that momentum by utilizing all of the tools at our disposal. Here are the ones that the report identified:

The Indonesian government must enforce existing forestry and anti-corruption laws and improve transparency and public access to information.
Trade in products created from illegal logging should be addressed as a trade subsidy and remedied through trade laws.
Trade and investment agreements should end demand for and trade in wood products that are illegally and or unsustainably sourced.
Adequate funding must be appropriated to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to enforce the Lacey Act.
Pulp and paper must be included in the Lacey Act import declaration requirement schedule so importers are held fully responsible for the materials they import.
Developed and developing countries must flesh out and implement REDD schemes with robust multi-level monitoring, reporting and verification systems, safeguards for community rights and tenure, and governance reforms that ensure lasting, sustainable growth with tangible benefits for local communities. (Key provisions towards this aim were included in the House passed climate bill as I discussed here and hopefully included in the Senate bill as I discussed here).

Since deforestation is a significant contributor to global warming emissions we must take action to ensure that incentives for destruction of the world’s tropical forests are eliminated. And we must aid the Indonesian government and its people in addressing this challenge, using every tool in our toolbox. After all, addressing this challenge is in the U.S. interest as America’s farmers and ranchers recently pointed out (as I discussed here), and as labor has just pointed out.

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

* Source: Data from the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database, available at: http://comtrade.un.org/db/default.aspx

Brazil, South Africa, India and China Want Legally Binding Outcome in 2011 at the Latest

2010-04-26T21:57:18Z

Ministers from four of the major emerging economies – Brazil, South Africa, India, and China (the “BASIC” group) – met over the weekend and through Monday to discuss the next steps in international efforts to address global warming. These four countries played a critical role in Copenhagen and collectively account for around 30% of the world’s global warming pollution* so they are critical players in addressing this challenge. And each of them have made commitments as a part of the Copenhagen Accord to reduce their emissions and are implementing policies to achieve those goals (as I discussed here).

So when these four countries meet, we pay very close intention to both the spirit and words of their joint statements. And their statement from this weekend provides us with some insights on where they think things should head internationally (full text available here). Here are some insights that I drew that were new (or at least reaffirmed more firmly by putting pen to paper on that issue).

They want an internationally legally binding agreement (and one that applies to them as well). Coming out of Copenhagen, there was some uncertainty in the minds of some commentators and countries regarding whether the major emerging economies really wanted an international legally binding agreement. Some perceived that these countries only want a legally binding agreement if it applies to the developed countries (and not to developing countries). While they didn’t completely clarify what they mean by “legally binding” (a critical point) these countries did confirm that they do indeed want a “legally binding agreement”. As they said:

“Developing countries strongly support international legally binding agreements, as the lack of such agreements hurts developing countries more than developed countries…Ministers agreed that…such agreements must follow two tracks and include an agreement on quantified emission reduction targets under a second commitment period for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol, as well as a legally binding agreement on long-term cooperative action under the Convention” [emphasis added].

So that was a mouthful, but essentially the part saying we want a “legally binding agreement on long-term cooperative action under the Convention” would apply to developing countries as this is the track of the negotiations where developing country commitments would be covered.

They want such an international legally binding agreement no later than 2011. As for the timing of such an agreement, the BASIC countries stated:

“Ministers felt that a legally binding outcome should be concluded at Cancun, Mexico in 2010, or at the latest in South Africa by 2011.”

As I’ve mentioned here, I think that it is critical that the upcoming climate meeting in Mexico this December focus on achieving progress on actions, rather than “binding” or “treaty” so I would think that we are more likely to agree on such a framework in 2011. With world leaders coming to the Rio +20 meeting in Brazil later in 2012, countries should be prepared to not only confirm their international commitment but also the actions that they are taking to make that agreement in 2011 have life (it will need deeds and not just words).

Make progress before this December on some key foundations of the international effort. These countries reaffirmed that they wanted to see progress in the lead-in to Cancun on:

the early flow of fast start finance – the “approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010-2012” agreed in the Copenhagen Accord;
implementation of the mechanism to address deforestation and forest degradation;
architecture of technology development and transfer;
an adaptation framework that includes implementation of measures (not just reports or plans)
monitoring, reporting, and verification of developed country commitments on finance to support developing countries in deploying clean energy, reducing deforestation emissions, and adapting to the impacts of global warming.

One piece that they left off and that I think is critical for getting agreement on these foundational elements in Cancun is to agree on the guidelines for the “transparency” pieces in the Copenhagen Accord (as I discussed here). These provisions around more frequent reporting of developing country emissions and progress towards their commitments are an important linchpin for the developed countries (such as the US and more frequently stressed by the Europeans). So we must make progress on these pieces if we are to also make progress on some of the other foundations of an international agreement on global warming.

We still have a lot of work ahead of us, but these key countries still appear committed to getting an international agreement. Ministers from around the world will be meeting again on May 2-4 in the “Petersberg Climate Dialogue” – co-hosted by Germany and Mexico – so we’ll see what signals emerge when a broader group of countries plan out the path from Copenhagen through Cancun. I for one hope that the world takes some tangible steps this year to rebuild trust and lay the foundation for an international agreement because we don’t have time to squabble as every year of delay makes it much, much more challenging to address global warming.

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

* Data from the World Resources Institute, Climate Analysis Indicator Tool based upon 2005 data.

40 Years After First Earth Day – Looking at where we need to be internationally on global warming in another 40 years

2010-04-22T19:43:24Z

Today celebrates the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day and later this week there will be a rally in the U.S. on global warming pollution to try to push the U.S. Senate over the finish line in passing a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year. And while Earth Day started in the U.S. it is now celebrated in 190 countries and by over a billion people. And no issue is more compelling for the 6.8 billion people on the planet than addressing global warming – an issue that confronts every aspect of the future of the planet and the people that live on it.

As my colleague pointed out this Earth Day we need a clean energy revolution that creates 2 million jobs, cuts 2 billion tons, and saves 2 trillion dollars in the U.S. And I would add we need a global clean energy and deforestation revolution. We need to take the global steps necessary to put the world on a path to solving global warming. The agreement reached in Copenhagen provided some solid building blocks for that revolution (as I’ve discussed here), but 40 years from now (in 2050) we clearly need much more if we are to address global warming. So where do we need to be 40 years from this historic Earth Day?

Here is one example of a 2050 world where we are on a path to holding global temperatures to less than 2°C (3.6 °F) – a goal affirmed by over 117 countries in the Copenhagen Accord. In 2050 global emissions would need to be somewhere around the green and purple lines.

This implies at least the following:

All major developed countries, including the US, need to have cut their emissions by at least 80%. That means that the US will need to have passed a comprehensive climate and energy bill like the one passed by the House of Representatives (as my colleague discussed here). And this legislation will need to have stood the test of time and be implemented effectively to meet these objectives without loopholes. Europe will have had to meet its 20-30% cut in emissions from 1990 levels target in 2020 and put in place subsequent measures for the period beyond 2020. Russia, Canada, Australia, Japan, and so on will have to put in place real policies in their domestic law to meet the commitment that they made at the G8 meeting last year to cut emissions to 80% by 2050 (and Canada clearly will have had to stop expanding tar sands way before then). And these countries will need to really meet these emission reduction targets, not just commit/promise to and not take the necessary steps at home to achieve them.

Major emerging and developing countries need to have embarked on a clean energy revolution while pulling billions of people out of poverty. Much of the growth in emissions will occur in major emerging economies (e.g., China, India, Brazil, Indonesia) and much of the infrastructure that will drive that emissions growth is occurring as we speak or will occur in the very near future. So these countries will need to pull billions of people out of poverty (1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 per day) while simultaneously avoiding the global warming emitting development path that the developed countries followed. Critical to this transition will be the efforts by countries like China and India which are embarking on this transition at a rapid pace and have made strides towards this clean energy revolution (as I discussed here and my colleagues have discussed here and here).

Deforestation emissions need to be effectively reduced to zero. Every second an area of rainforest the size of two football fields is lost to deforestation. That is forest that won’t come back and the annual emissions associated with its loss is equivalent to the emissions of all the cars, trucks, buses, planes, trains, and boats in the world. So every second that we don’t stem the loss of tropical forests, we are making our effort to solve global warming that much harder. Luckily the world has recognized the importance of addressing this challenge and is finally focused on mobilizing the resources and political will to finally tackle it (as I discussed here). But a big question mark remains in what the U.S. will do as the fate of key deforestation reduction provisions in the Senate climate bill is uncertain (as I discussed here). Key countries like Brazil seem poised to show that it will be possible to dramatically decrease the loss of their forests by 2020 (as I discussed here) so there is hope on the horizon.

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

My colleagues have pointed out the many environmental and health gains we have made in the U.S. during the past 40 years. I wasn’t around for the first Earth Day, but have lived through a number of these successes and have benefited greatly. I have 2 small children and so I often think about what things will be like for them in the future. 40 years from now will we have addressed the most critical environmental, economic, and security issue facing the world—global warming? I sure hope so as I would like to be able celebrate with them 40 years from now on the success of the international community to address global warming.

Bonn to Cancun…Negotiators Agree to Continue Efforts on International Global Warming (just barely)

2010-04-11T21:02:14Z

The first global warming negotiations post Copenhagen have just wrapped up here in Bonn (as I discussed here). It was a 3 day session and was mostly focused on establishing the process and expectations for negotiations this year. While there was some complaining about the Copenhagen Accord from some quarters, the complaining was timid compared with my expectations. That was positive so countries could focus more on what could realistically be achieved in Cancun (the expectations for the year) and how to get there (the process).

So where do things stand on the process and expectations for the year?

Process – how are things organized and what “text” do we use? Countries are grappling with two questions related to the process of the negotiations this year.

Could you streamline the negotiations by creating a more formal “smaller group” negotiating session? One proposal would have created a 40 country negotiating group that would sit around the table and be the only ones speaking in the formal plenary. These countries would get input from the other countries not “sitting around the table” as they would be representing some regional or other country grouping (e.g., the least developed countries, Alliance of Small Island States, etc). This would create a format where not all 194 countries provided input at every moment in the process. Such a smaller setting is critical to achieving progress in global warming negotiations but lost a lot of trust in Copenhagen (as I discussed here).

How would you integrate the Copenhagen Accord into the other negotiating texts that were produced throughout the year and were presented with lots of [brackets] – disagreements – in Copenhagen? Since the Accord was “taken note of” by all 194 countries and only some 110 of the 194 countries have “associated with the Accord” (as I discussed here) there is pushback from some countries to inclusion of the Accord agreements into the process in a more formal manner--notably the ALBA countries (led by Venezuela with Bolivia and Cuba also weighing-in for this group) countries and League of Arab States (led by Saudi Arabia with Egypt as their spokesperson). Saudi Arabia has a long track record of blocking progress in the global warming negotiations (as Andy Revkin discusses here) so this was no surprise.

So given these divisions countries agreed to let the Chair produce a text “under her own responsibility” and present it before the next meeting of this process – back here in Bonn this coming June. There was a huge debate about whether she could draw upon the Copenhagen Accord to inform the development of this text (I tweeted the play by play on this at jschmidtnrdc). It was painful and there were times that it looked like we weren’t going to agree, but the Chair basically said I’m going to produce whatever text I think appropriate no matter what texts you allow me to look at. So that framework was agreed and she’ll produce a draft negotiating text which will help the world focus on the implementation of key building blocks. Luckily many countries aren’t waiting for this text before implementing actions to address global warming as I discussed here.

Expectations for the year – “all or nothing” (comprehensive) or make progress on what can be agreed? As I discussed here, there is huge value in agreeing to the details on individual pieces – such as deforestation reductions, transparency, and finance – at the meeting in Cancun this December. I would call this the “agree to what can be agreed” method. I’m skeptical that we can agree to everything in Cancun and also to the legal form of the future agreement, which is why I argued to implement key building blocks necessary for international agreement and to focus on actions in Cancun. Under the alternative framework – “all or nothing” – agreement on one piece is only allowed if everything else is agreed (this stalled getting agreement on deforestation and adaptation in Copenhagen and we can't afford that again).

This wasn’t expected to be resolved in Bonn, but there were some emerging themes. The US argued that the Copenhagen Accord reflected a balanced set of agreements and were all woven together – you can’t eliminate one without the others also falling apart.

Stay tuned on how this debate unfolds this year as it will be critical to determining whether Cancun can be used to rebuild trust and to begin the critical work of implementation. Too much dependence on “all or nothing” will likely result in stalemate as some individual pieces are unlikely to progress as far as others this year. I think this comes down critically to ensuring that there are decisions to implement the transparency (a key for the US) and finance (a key for developing countries) provisions of the Copenhagen Accord. So those two interwoven issues need to be agreed with greater detail in Cancun in order to provide confidence to the US to move on finance and for the developing countries to move on transparency. Once those two groups feel comfortable that these issues are resolved, the other “building blocks” of the international effort – reducing emissions from deforestation and adaptation – can be resolved this year.

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

All of this effort towards Cancun depends on whether the US passes a comprehensive clean energy and global warming legislation this year. Without the US driving forward with implementing solutions to global warming it will be hard to have any positive outcome in Cancun this year.

I feel like a broken record, but please, leaders in the Senate, now is the time to act. You have ample reasons to find solutions that put the US on a path to creating clean energy jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce our global warming pollution.

Others are acting whether or not the US does (as I discussed here), so it is time for the US to get in the game for real.

From Copenhagen to Cancun – Learning Lessons for International Action on Global Warming & Moving to Action

2010-04-09T12:50:48Z

In the lead-in to Copenhagen’s global warming summit last December a lot of the public statements and press coverage focused on whether or not Copenhagen would “seal the deal” and agree to a new international treaty to address global warming. So this framed the expectation in the public sphere for what would be accomplished in Copenhagen. This public framing was evident in the post-Copenhagen agreement press coverage (which was largely negative) even though in the lead-in to Copenhagen the expectations for the Summit were reduced to a “two-step” process – with Copenhagen producing a political agreement (the first step) and the second step (a new treaty) to come later. So the “treaty” wasn’t agreed in Copenhagen but a political agreement (the Copenhagen Accord) was agreed, now what? The first step of that post-Copenhagen process begins today here in Bonn, Germany (where I’ll be today and through the weekend).

As I’ve discussed before, over 110 countries have associated with the provisions in the Copenhagen Accord and 75 countries accounting for over 80% of the world’s emissions have committed to specific actions to reduce their global warming pollution. These are critical building blocks for international efforts to address global warming. We can’t address global warming if we don’t have countries taking actions at home to reduce their emissions and we can’t have an international agreement if countries don’t reinforce that they do indeed want to take cooperative action.

So what is the process going forward, the prospects for Cancun (this December), and the path to a strong international effort to address global warming? Let’s remind ourselves of the famous quote: “those that don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. That is a good working theme for the post-Copenhagen process. Whatever you think of the Copenhagen Accord – building block, success, failure, or question mark – if we don’t learn from Copenhagen then we won’t produce a different international outcome on global warming. We will leave Cancun no different than we left Copenhagen. The world, the fate of current and future generations, and all the solutions created by smart global warming policy that are being demanded by people throughout the world (creating clean energy jobs, reducing national security risks, and reducing pollution) depend on us learning from the history of Copenhagen.

So here are some lessons from Copenhagen (from my point of view).

Focus on actions and foundations, not “binding” or “treaty”. So much of the public focus on Copenhagen was on whether or not we would agree to a new “binding treaty” that we lost focus on the outcome that we actually want – countries taking concrete steps to reduce their emissions, countries supporting developing countries in emissions reductions and adaptation, and creating reinforcing means to encourage countries to actually implement the actions that they committed to undertake.

We used to believe that countries would only take action at home to reduce their emissions, if there was an international agreement. That is still true for some countries and does influence how much action countries take (e.g., will countries go to the upper end of their pledge), but it isn’t a completely true perspective anymore. China isn’t waiting for an international agreement to begin to implement actions into their domestic political system (as my colleague has discussed here and here), South Korea has passed a law to implement its commitments (as I discussed here), Mexico is debating as we speak a parliamentary law which would implement specific domestic actions to reduce emissions (as I learned the other day from colleagues at the Mexican NGO CEMDA), India is implementing domestic policies to increase deployment of clean energy (as my colleague recently discussed) and the race for the clean energy future is occurring every day (as country’s are trying to be in a leadership position for the jobs, technology, and economic drivers of this century). The international focus on this effort can reinforce, nudge, and support those domestically driven actions but without those domestic actions we wouldn’t be able to have an international agreement. So the fact that these domestic actions are occurring without a “legally agreement” is encouraging and gives hope that we won’t sit and wait for another meeting or agreement before taking action.

Implement key building blocks necessary for international agreement – don’t skip past these key aspects to the “b” (binding) or “t” (treaty) words. As I’ve discussed before (here, here, and here), Copenhagen achieved five important things. It is critical that significant progress is made on these key pieces before Cancun:

1. Commitments to actions to reduce global warming pollution by all key countries. 75 countries, accounting for over 80% of the world’s emissions have committed to take action to reduce their emissions. We should have a platform or process in Cancun for countries to discuss their progress to implement actions at home to meet these action commitments. The US should have to say what it is doing at home towards its pledge, China and India should do the same, and so on. This kind of transparency will be important to reinforce the domestic pressure from businesses, citizens, politicians, etc. to take action and will encourage countries to take concrete action in advance of Cancun (as no one will want to go before the world and say that they did nothing since Copenhagen).

2. Pledges to support near-term (through 2012) and longer-term financing to assist developing countries in deploying clean energy, reducing deforestation emissions, and adapting to the impacts of global warming. Some progress has been made in countries outlining their “prompt start” commitments (through 2012), but there are still a number of unknowns (as the World Resources Institute documented). And there is a significant unknown on the larger commitment to deliver $100 billion of public and private financing by 2020. The High-Level Advisory Group is evaluating options to meet this commitment (as I discussed here), but there are troubling signs in key countries.

Current trends in the US Senate debate on the climate and energy bill give me great concern that President Obama will be able to deliver on this commitment – a commitment that he personally drove home and a commitment that was central to getting the Copenhagen Accord agreed (as my colleague discussed this was a key part of a two step chess move to unlock the agreement). So President Obama and his Administration have a personal investment to deliver on this financing commitment. Not meeting this commitment will have a significant reputational impact on President Obama and the U.S., which will have implications for all things that the US tries to achieve internationally (and will make achieving an international agreement very challenging as a huge amount of trust will be eroded).

3. Deforestation emissions will be a core part of international efforts. Key countries are meeting in a process created by the Norwegian and French governments to create a Global Partnership on REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) as I discussed here. This process won’t agree to new details on global efforts to address deforestation emissions but it will provide an important venue for better cooperation and transparency on the delivery of and actions supported by the prompt start funding for deforestation (the $4 billion through 2012 that has been committed to date).

The more specific detailed agreements on the international framework for deforestation reductions were very close to being agreed in Copenhagen, but were caught in the vacuum of “nothing can be agreed until everything is agreed”. So it will be critical to take those elements that were almost agreed and finalize them in Cancun, so more significant actions can be unleashed to reduce deforestation emissions. It is also important that the underlying elements of this agreement are delivered as well, notably the finance piece which is also in trouble in the US climate bill debate (as I discussed here).

4. Adaptation needs to be addressed in the most vulnerable countries. We almost had agreement in Copenhagen on a number of the adaptation elements that are important to guide international efforts to support the most vulnerable countries in adapting to global warming. For most developing countries, adaptation is the critical piece of the international agreement that they are watching. So to build trust and create the space for these countries to put the necessary pressure on the major emitters to take action, the world needs to make serious progress on agreeing to how adaptation efforts will be supported in the most vulnerable developing countries.

5. Countries need to provide transparent, frequent, and credible information on their actions and progress towards those commitments, as well as to establish a clear process for international consultation on that information. Getting agreement in Copenhagen was significantly influenced by getting agreement on the “transparency” provisions so fleshing out the details of these transparency guidelines in Cancun will be critical. And these provisions are central to providing the necessary information to know whether or not we are solving this global challenge and whether countries are meeting their commitments.

From Copenhagen to Cancun – Progressing the building blocks of an international agreement. By making progress on these individual pieces and agreeing to rules/guidelines for these at Cancun, countries will build trust and provide greater agreement on the substantive details which are essential for whatever international outcome we ultimately achieve. That means agreeing to these pieces before agreeing the exact legal form that we are trying to achieve (i.e., “binding”, “treaty”, “agreement”). And it means not skipping past these building blocks and heading straight to whether or not we are going to get an international agreement in a specific form. We can’t have any agreement without having the right details underpinning it.

So as work begins here in Bonn, it will be essential to learn from the past and build a clear sense of what can and cannot be achieved in Cancun. That means focusing on agreeing on and implementing a couple of tangible elements of the international effort – not trying to resolve all the details necessary for a final agreement.

World Bank Needs to do Better on Energy Sector Investments Post South African Coal Project

2010-04-08T22:52:35Z

Today the World Bank approved a loan to build the fourth largest power plant in the world. The project is to be financed with a $3 billion loan to Eskom – the South African electricity company – and is the largest coal-plant loan in the Bank history. The 4,800-megawatt Medupi power plant would emit 25 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – an amount equivalent to about half the annual emissions of Norway.

This was a challenging and complicated project and was less about South Africa than about the World Bank’s role in helping (or hindering) the world’s efforts to address global warming.

We support the efforts of developing countries to alleviate their energy poverty, but dirty coal power is not the pathway to a sustainable economy. The World Bank must do much more to help countries meet their energy needs in a manner that protects them from disastrous climate change. Today’s decision is a failure by the World Bank to meet those needs. They must do better!

I’m now hearing that 4 voting members of the World Bank Board of Directors abstained from this project (US, UK, the Netherlands, Italy, with Norway saying it would have voted no but it is a part of a Nordic voting block in the World Bank). Abstaining from a World Bank vote essentially means that they are opposed to the project, but they are not voting to block the project. The US statement outlining its rationale for abstaining discussed these concerns:

“…the United States is concerned about the project since it would produce significant greenhouse gas emissions, and uncertainty remains about future mitigation efforts. Without actions to offset the carbon emissions of the Medupi plant, the project is incompatible with the World Bank's strategy to help countries pursue economic growth and poverty reduction in ways that are environmentally sustainable. We also remain concerned about other facets of the project, including the inconsistency of Eskom's procurement process with the World Bank's Procurement Guidelines, deficiencies in the environmental impact assessment, and potentially inadequate efforts to mitigate local pollution. The project is also inconsistent with new guidelines on coal lending adopted by the United States in December 2009.”

South Africa responded to the criticisms of this project with some commitments, including a proposal to come back to the World Bank with a $1.25 billion loan for emissions reduction actions and changing their energy sector policies to better enable renewable energy to compete (the later a major limitation restricting the viability of wind in South Africa as the wind energy folks have told me). So hopefully some good will come out of this whole effort so that this will be the transition moment to help South Africa transform its energy sector so that renewables and energy efficiency will out compete uncontrolled coal (with some help from the World Bank to get there).

This project received significant criticism and generated strong opposition from groups in South Africa and serious questions from key Members of Congress – Sen. Leahy, Sen. Kerry, and Rep. Frank (as this ClimateWire article pointed out). So how do you think the World Bank would respond to these concerns/questions? This quote from a World Bank spokesperson before the vote was either way too optimistic or completely downplayed the grave concern that have been obvious for a while from key members of the Bank Board:

"We believe this project is important for South Africa and South Africans and we expect it will be well received by the board," World Bank spokesman Peter Stephens told Reuters.

I don’t know if I would consider five abstentions from key countries as “well received”. And one of those statements (from the US) basically said “don’t do that again”:

“We expect that the World Bank will not bring forward similar coal projects from middle-income countries in the future without a plan to ensure there is no net increase in carbon emissions.”

I sure hope before the World Bank comes to the US and other donors with hat in hand asking for more money for a General Capital Increase that they come with a real energy strategy and a clear plan to stop funding projects which are causing global warming. Otherwise, I’m afraid they are going to have a major challenge convincing countries around the world that this is a worthy investment. After all, how can we use scarce resources to cause a problem – global warming – that we are simultaneously trying to eliminate?

Please World Bank help to fund the transition to a clean energy future – you must do better after this project.

75 Countries Committing to Take Action on Global Warming & 110 Support the Copenhagen Accord

2010-03-31T20:09:55Z

The final outcome coming from Copenhagen this past December left many confused about how many countries would ultimately commit to take actions to reduce their global warming pollution as the Copenhagen Accord agreed (as I discussed here). And there was confusion about how many countries wanted to support the international efforts outlined in the Accord – after all 28 countries drafted the final agreement, but the Accord was only “taken note” of by the 193 countries in Copenhagen. Well 3 months after the Accord was agreed we have some answers on both fronts.

75 countries accounting for over 80% of the world’s emissions have formally communicated actions that they are planning to take to reduce their global warming pollution (full list available here and here; as I commented on here). As the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat just reported:

“41 industrialised countries have formally communicated their economy-wide targets to the UNFCCC. 35 developing countries have communicated information on the nationally appropriate mitigation actions they are planning to take, provided they receive the appropriate support in terms of finance and technology.”

Many of these countries have announced specific actions since Copenhagen to implement measures to meet these commitments (as we’ve discussed here and here; and as you can track here). Implementation of these actions is one of the critical components of international efforts to address global warming – after all the core building block of an international agreement is the actions that countries take at home to reduce their global warming pollution.

From A (Albania) to Z (Zambia) and many in between -- 111 countries have indicated their support for the Copenhagen Accord. These countries (see the full list at the end of this post) have now formally recorded their support of the Accord, which basically means “we agree to international action on global warming and on the basis of the outlines agreed in the Accord”. So these countries are basically saying (amongst other items in the 12 points of the Accord):

We’ll collectively take action to reduce global warming pollution aiming to hold temperatures to less than 2ºC (3.6 ºF);
Both developed and developing countries (except the Least Developed Countries) will take actions to reduce their global warming pollution (as 75 countries have now documented);
We agree to report our emissions and progress towards our emissions reduction commitments every 2 years according to internationally agreed guidelines and with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines” on these reports (as I discussed here);
Support will be provided for efforts to address deforestation which accounts for over 15% of the world’s emissions (countries have now pledged $4 billion over 3 years to support this effort);
We’ll mobilize $30 billion over the next 3 years for deforestation reductions, clean energy deployment, and adaptation in developing countries and we’ll jointly work to scale this up to $100 billion per year by 2020 (as I discussed here).

So those are the outlines of agreements reached in the Copenhagen Accord, where do we head next internationally?

The climate negotiations will commence next week (April 9-11) for an discussion of where things head on the path to the climate meeting in Mexico this December. I think it is critical that the world focus on implementing the key steps agreed in the Copenhagen Accord and adding more detail to a limited set of the issues. This means focusing Mexico less on tying up all the loose ends, but rather making progress on implementing the key building blocks for international efforts – actions, support, and transparency. And for a limited number of things where there is greater agreement – such as reducing deforestation emissions – get consensus on the specific elements of how the international community will jointly address that issue. I’ll post some more detailed thoughts in advance of that meeting next week so stay tuned.

So we don’t know exactly how things will proceed this year but we do know that solving global warming requires that key countries take actions to reduce their emissions, we find ways to help developing countries reduce their emissions and deal with the impacts of global warming, and we establish provisions to effectively assess whether or not countries are taking the steps that they agreed to. Hopefully this year we’ll have clear progress in implementing each of these cornerstones of the international effort.

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

Here is the text of the Copenhagen Accords chapeau, which lists the countries that have formally agreed to be listed as supporting the Accord:

The Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and other heads of the following delegations present at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen:

Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, European Union, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay and Zambia.

China leading the Clean Energy Race – Check out the Facts

2010-03-25T16:23:22Z

“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.

Halting Tropical Deforestation is in the US Interest – just ask US farmers and ranchers

2010-03-24T19:27:32Z

Want to Protect Farms and Ranches Here? Protect them there. Ending deforestation in the tropics isn’t just some tree-hugger’s cause. Those are the opening lines of a new advertisement campaign run by the Ohio Corn Growers Association and Avoided Deforestation Partners which stresses the need to protect tropical forests in order to protect the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture (see ad to right and click to make it bigger).

You may be asking, why is an American farm group supporting efforts to stop tropical deforestation – many, many miles from their home base? The simple answer is (as the ad states):

“Illegal overseas agriculture and timber operations are tearing down and burning the world’s forests to make room for massive logging, cattle, palm oil and soybean operations. This deforestation is a leading cause of climate pollution, but it also hurts U.S. agriculture. Crops grown on this slash-and-burn land undercut American farmers and ranchers producing corn, soy, canola, meat and leather. And paper and wood products from illegal tropical logging undercut responsibly managed U.S. forests. This deforestation reduces commodity prices and hurts competitiveness, putting additional strains on American families trying to hold onto their farms, ranches and timberlands” [emphasis added].

Tropical deforestation and agriculture. Agricultural expansion is a major driver of deforestation in many developing countries. For example, it is estimated that agricultural expansion – from soy and cattle – accounts for 80% of Brazil’s deforestation (and a recent study suggested that 80% of the world’s deforestation since 1980 was the result of agricultural expansion). Illegal and unsustainable logging often work in tandem with agriculture to cause deforestation – logging clears the rainforest, selling the wood provides cash for investments in agricultural operations, and then agricultural crops and cattle are introduced into recently cleared land a couple of years after clear cutting. A few years later, more land is cleared as the former rainforest soil is quickly depleted.

How does agricultural expansion in rainforests impact US farmers and ranchers? First, agriculture and forestry products from countries with large deforestation such as Brazil and Indonesia are sold directly into the U.S. These products can compete with goods produced in the U.S. Second, agricultural and forestry products like timber, beef and soy are globally traded commodities. When these products are sourced from deforested land and sold in the global market, they compete directly with more sustainably produced U.S. exports and impact the market price of those products throughout the world. For example, in 2007 Brazil accounted for 32% of the global exports of soybeans* – soybean are one of the major agriculture drivers of deforestation in Brazil. In a sense some agriculture expansion in tropical forests is “subsidized” by lax enforcement of illegal logging and unfettered expansion of agriculture into the rainforests.

This video from Avoided Deforestation Partners shows the dynamics in very helpful way (if you are more of a visual person).

Luckily the House-passed energy and climate bill contains key provisions that aid in slowing and stopping deforestation (as I’ve discussed here) – and Senator Kerry has supported these provisions in bills that he co-authored (as you can see here and here). The bill sets aside 5% of the value of allowances from the cap and trade program for deforestation reduction activities in tropical countries and contains provisions for high-quality forest carbon offsets in countries that have developed robust systems to ensure that the reductions are real, additional, verifiable, and permanent. Without the investment in the deforestation set aside, tropical forest countries won’t have near-term resources to build their capacity and develop the robust systems to generate credible offsets (they will never move from a theoretical supplier of offsets to a real supplier). And it will be hard to define a system that doesn’t lead to agriculture and forestry activities simply shifting to non-participant countries – so called “leakage” – which is why the set aside is also designed to support efforts in countries that are susceptible to “leakage” but aren’t eligible for offsets. We need both the set aside and strong rules governing offsets to ensure that offsets based on reducing deforestation are actually reducing global warming pollution across the world and therefore have real value. In other words, this set aside investment is critical to the development of deforestation offsets which aren’t “subprime”.

Slowing the loss of tropical forests, which contributes up to 17% of the world’s global warming pollution, is not only good global warming policy, but is also in the interest of U.S. farmers, ranchers, and foresters, as recently recognized by the Ohio Corn Growers, American Forest and Paper Association, National Farmers Union, National Alliance of Forest Owners, American Forest Foundation, Conservation Forestry, Green Diamond, and Hardwood Federation (see letter here).

Hopefully the Senate will take up these provisions and listen to the growing chorus of America’s farmers, ranchers, and foresters that see the connection between reducing tropical deforestation and keeping American agricultural and timber exports strong.

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

Sasha Lyutse greatly assisted in this post.

* Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOStat, FAO Statistics Division (2009), November 10, 2009

The Changing Threat to Water: Global Warming & World Water Day

2010-03-22T16:31:48Z

“All regions of the world show an overall net negative impact of climate change on water resources and freshwater ecosystems.”

Today is World Water Day – a day established to recognize the importance of water to the nations and people of the world (for other posts from NRDC on this day click here). Nearly one billion people around the world don't have clean drinking water and 2.6 billion still lack basic sanitation. So the challenge confronting the world today is daunting and critical as clean water sustains life (and lack of water makes life difficult). And it will be made worse, with the impacts on water projected under global warming.

Some signs of the water impacts from global warming are already occurring today in the US and around the world (as you can see in this great photo collection). For example (a brief overview is available in the IPCC summary on page 27):

Deserts are spreading, fueling armed conflict and putting families on the move in places like Sudan, Kenya and Somalia (as my colleagues pointed out). Concern about armed conflicts from global warming has led to the creation within the US Central Intelligence Agency of the Center on Climate Change and National Security, to assess the national security risks posed to the United States by widening desertification; rising sea levels; population shifts and increasing competition for food, land and fresh water.
The Oceans are acidifying (as NRDC has summarized). Over the last 250 years, oceans have absorbed 530 billion tons of CO2, triggering a 30 percent increase in ocean acidity. Researchers predict that if carbon emissions continue at their current rate, ocean acidity will more than double by 2100. Acidification threatens the future of ocean protein sources which is a major concern since the oceans currently provide around 17% of the protein that humans consume – and as the world is struggling to feed the current population any disruption is very problematic.
Sea level is rising. Higher temperatures are expected to further raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers and small ice caps, and causing portions of Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets to melt. The IPCC estimates that the global average sea level will rise between 0.6 and 2 feet in the next century (as discussed in this post). This would cause: huge populations to be at risk as a lot of the world’s population lives on or near coasts, land loss, increased vulnerability of coastal areas to flooding during storms, disrupting water supply through “saltwater intrusion”, etc (as this US government site highlights and as you can see in this photo collection).
Water everywhere but not always when it is needed, in quantities that can be used, and in places that need it. Heavy precipitation events are more likely as a result of global warming which can cause severe flooding. Snow cover area is projected to contract as are a number of glaciers (as you can see in this photo collection) around the world which is a major concern as many population centers of the world depend on melting snow and glaciers for their freshwater, supply of water for agriculture, and electricity from hydropower (e.g., billions of people in Asia depend at least partially on Himalayan meltwater). And as I recently discussed Amazon rainforest is still very susceptible to dieback due to climate change.
Agriculture production? Water is critical for agriculture production, so any change in the pattern of rainfall (e.g., later wet seasons, heavier rainfall, droughts, etc.) can have a significant impact on ability of the world (and key countries) to feed humans. Global warming’s impact on agriculture varies by region but could have serious impacts in a number of regions (as the IPCC highlights), including in the US (where the predicted damage is estimated to be $950 billion by 2100).

So if any of these potential impacts on water resources from global warming are of concern to you, then Water Day (or any day for that matter) is a good day to take some key steps to help avoid these stresses on water, including:

Amazon Rainforest Still Very Susceptible to Dieback Due to Climate Change

2010-03-19T22:26:28Z

In the ongoing onslaught on the science underlying global warming, one recent criticism has focused on the finding that global warming could cause large-scale dieback of Amazon rainforest as cited in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (a point spun by the opponents of action on global warming as this post highlights). Leading scientists with years of experience studying the Amazon rainforest have just released a letter that puts into perspective this recent controversy. The gist of their conclusion is that we should still be concerned.

In the letter (available here), 19 highly respected scientists who conduct research on Amazon forests, climate, and/or fire refute claims that there is no link between drought (one of the possible impacts of global warming in this region) and Amazon dieback. This “controversy” arose because the IPCC cited a study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) instead of a peer reviewed journal as is common practice by the IPCC. And a recent study from researchers at Boston University claims to “debunk myths about vulnerability of Amazon rainforests to drought” (as you can see here by the coverage).

But as it turns out the WWF study was merely a collection of a large body of peer reviewed articles and as these leading scientists conclude:

“the statement made by the IPCC about the sensitivity of Amazon forests [to] drought was consistent with our knowledge at that time, and has been reinforced by new studies.”

In response to the Boston University study that supposedly “debunked” the “myth” of Amazon dieback due to drought their response was:

"First, there is no myth. Rather, there are multiple, consistent lines of evidence from ground-based studies published in the peer-reviewed literature that Amazon forests are, indeed, very susceptible to drought stress. Second, nothing is debunked by the new study."

So why do we care about this potential dieback of the Amazon rainforest? The Amazon Basin’s trees hold carbon stocks equivalent to more than a decade of global fossil fuel emissions. The forest also releases enough water to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration and to the ocean via river outflow to influence world climate and ocean circulation systems. So if you are trying to reduce global warming pollution and minimize the impacts from global warming, the last thing you want to do is create conditions that lead to a huge increase in emissions (massive Amazon dieback) and that could exacerbate one of the possible impacts of global warming (changes in ocean circulation).

So what is the connection between this huge carbon stock, rainfall, fires, and global warming? As this post on RealClimate from a forest scientist highlights: “The evidence for the possibility of a major die-back of the Amazon rainforest is due to two factors:

That climate change induced decreases in rainfall in the dry season occur, and
The trees cannot tolerate these reductions in rainfall.

As the 19 scientists point the link can be as follows:

“Reductions in rainfall can affect Amazon forests by increasing tree mortality, but also by increasing their susceptibility to fire. The initial fire kills trees, increasing the likelihood of subsequent fires for years afterwards in a vicious positive feedback loop.”

As the RealClimate post points out there is some uncertainty about whether rainfall will be reduced in the Amazon due to global warming, but several peer-reviewed studies have shown that this is a real possibility.

So the Amazon rainforests aren’t totally “out of the woods” or guaranteed to “go up in smoke”, but they are still very susceptible to dieback due to global warming as these respected scientists highlighted.

I for one would rather not risk losing an area of rainforest larger than the continental U.S. because some ill-cited peer reviewed studies or new study raised some uncertainty. As my colleague has pointed out (here and here) there are plenty of facts on-the-ground that point us clearly towards the need to reduce our global warming pollution. The Amazon and the planet aren’t worth such a risky bet.

China and India to Report their Global Warming Pollution Every 2 Years

2010-03-16T13:30:40Z

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:

Where you currently are (e.g., how good, bad, or ugly is your current environmental situation);
Where you want to head (e.g., what are you trying to achieve in order to solve the challenge); and
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.

Where do things stand on international efforts to address global warming?

2010-03-11T14:42:34Z

It is almost 3 months after the Copenhagen Accord was hammered out by 28 of the world’s key countries that represent over 80% of the world’s global warming pollution and some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (as I discussed here). Given the state of the Accord just after Copenhagen with some calling it a failure, some outlining the foundations in the Accord for international efforts (and as my colleague discussed here), and others…well not quite sure what to make of it, where do things stand on international efforts to address global warming?

If you just picked up the paper, watched TV, listened to the radio, or read blogs you might think that things aren’t really moving as there is very little coverage of international global warming discussions (especially compared to last year when every 5 seconds some news story or analysis emerged). But that doesn’t mean that nothing is happening on the international front. In fact, despite the lack of regular coverage, things are moving forward – albeit tentatively, behind the scenes, and without a big splash. Here are four things that are occurring that are worth following.

Over 108 countries have “associated with” the Copenhagen Accord (as summarized here).* These countries account for over 80% of the emissions and 77% of the population of the world. The last two major pieces fell into place when China and India formally “associated with the Accord” in the last 2 days (as my colleagues discussed here and as covered by the New York Times). Basically these countries are saying: “we agree to international action on global warming and on the basis of the outlines agreed in the Accord”. Of course many of these countries have urged for deeper action than outlined in the Accord, but by Associating with the Accord they are signaling that they want to proceed internationally to address global warming.

60 countries representing over 80% of the world’s emissions have formally recorded actions to reduce their global warming pollution (as I discussed here). Many of these countries aren’t simply waiting for some future international meeting or for the final international agreement to implement specific policies and programs to reduce their pollution. For example, as my colleagues have discussed, China and India have adopted new domestic policies since Copenhagen that will reduce their global warming pollution. Brazil signed a bilateral agreement with the US (available here) and there are expectations that the US will sign another one with Indonesia when President Obama goes there March 20-22 (hopefully with concrete near term actions).

Key countries will begin to coordinate efforts to address deforestation emissions. Over 15% of the world’s global warming pollution comes from deforestation and forest degradation, so the Copenhagen Accord agreed: “on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions [that reduce deforestation and forest degradation]”. Key countries including the US, Australia, Germany, and France agreed to contribute $3.5 billion over 3 years to “prompt start” efforts to reduce deforestation emissions. It is critical to ensure that the flow of this early money goes to effective actions that reduce deforestation as every second a football field size of rainforest is lost (and it won’t return). So instead of waiting for the next international negotiating session or greater clarity on how things proceed (and more loss of the tropical forests), a group of key developed countries and deforesting countries are meeting as we speak to begin efforts to better coordinate global efforts to combat deforestation.

High-level and influential set of policymakers will be discussing ways to generate sizeable funding to assist developing countries in deploying clean energy, reducing deforestation emissions, and adapting to the impacts of climate change. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has created a High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing to be chaired by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, with representatives including George Soros, Nick Stern, and Lawrence Summers. The group is tentatively scheduled to meet March 29th and will provide an initial report to the May/June climate negotiating session and a final report to the climate meeting in Cancun, Mexico in December. Let’s hope some politically possible and specific proposals emerge that can be adopted by key countries.

That is the positive momentum that has occurred post-Copenhagen. But of course not everything is all good news. The World Bank is still funding things that are taking us in the wrong direction by proposing to finance a coal plant in South Africa that isn’t capturing its carbon (and doesn’t put in place a real plan to capture it’s carbon in the future), and is barely investing in renewables and doesn’t have a real energy efficiency investment as a part of this proposal. Indonesia is proposing to classify its palm forests as “forests” in order to access money that is supposed to be set aside for deforestation reduction efforts – not exactly the aim of that funding as it is supposed to support things that are slowing deforestation, not actions that deforested rainforests in the first place. Critical actions by the US gained a little momentum when President Obama met with key Senators and made clear his support for a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year, but uncertainty about US action still clouds international prospects (let alone holding back the needed investments in job creation, energy independence, and clean energy technology leadership).

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

So there is some uncertainty about how things proceed. In many respects that is only natural as the Summit in Copenhagen wasn’t your normal climate negotiations and the process after the Summit was left unclear. So the world spent a couple of months sorting out what was achieved, how the Copenhagen Accord was to proceed, and what are the next steps for the UN climate negotiations. But while that “sorting” was occurring, things proceeded and countries moved forward with actions to reduce their emissions (with some hiccups along the way).

The expectations for the climate meeting in Cancun, Mexico this December appear to be focused not on agreeing to the final treaty (as the European Commission just outlined is likely), but rather to making concrete progress to implement the actions that countries committed to reduce their emissions, the finance that is to be deployed in the near- and medium-term, the rules for the “transparency” provisions agreed in the Accord, and the guidelines for efforts to solve the loss of tropical rainforests. Those actions are critical and countries have made it clear that they want those things to proceed, even while they sort out exactly how things will progress this year.

Now is not the time to sit in a holding pattern and wait for exact clarity on how things proceed. We must plug ahead and implement key actions that will put the world closer to solving this critical challenge.

-----------

* This includes countries that have formally sent letters to the UNFCCC signaling their desire to be “associated with the Accord” and those that have submitted emissions reduction actions but may not have not clarified in their submission that they want to be “associated”. All values based upon data from the World Resources Institute Climate Analysis Indicator Tool. Emissions from 2005 and include deforestation; population data from 2006.