Melanie Nakagawa's Blog: Solving Global Warming

Waxman Markey Bill Shows Strong Support for Exporting Clean Technology and Building Resilience in Developing Countries

2009-04-03T19:00:16Z

The recently released draft of the Waxman Markey draft climate bill sets the 111th Congress off to a great start, but more importantly, has put together a set of tools that will help our climate negotiators on their way to Copenhagen.

My colleagues have highlighted various provisions in this bill and I want to highlight two additional significant provisions that we are hopeful will help advance the US position in climate negotiations: exporting clean technology and international adaptation.

The benefits of the exporting clean technology provisions are 4-fold:

First, it provides for US assistance to encourage widespread deployment of clean technologies to developing countries-specifically to projects that achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through deployment of low- or zero-carbon technologies.
Second, the draft specifies that only developing countries that have ratified an international treaty and undertaken nationally appropriate mitigation activities that achieve substantial greenhouse gas reductions are eligible for funding.
Third, it establishes an International Clean Technology Fund in the US Treasury with an interagency group to administer this Fund.
Fourth, it identifies criteria for project selection to include, among other criteria: substantial measurable, reportable and verifiable reductions in emissions relative to business-as-usual; no net loss of US jobs or displacement of US production; and co-financing.

Regarding adapting to global warming, the Waxman-Markey discussion draft recognizes the importance of US assistance in supporting the development and implementation of climate change adaptation programs and projects that can reduce the vulnerability and increase the resilience of the most vulnerable developing countries.

In the recent Oxfam press release on this discussion draft they highlighted the significant step forward this bill takes on addressing the needs of those countries and regions hardest hit by the impacts of climate change. Hopefully many of you know the gravity of the adaptation challenge for many regions and countries on our planet, but it bears some repeating. Adaptation is not something that is forthcoming but rather happening today for millions of people. Sea level rise, changing weather and climatic patterns, and forced migration are increasing in frequency. We will need to get out ahead of these impacts, but in many places we must first catch up. And according to a recent Oxfam report, "Adaptation 101: How climate change hurts poor communities-and how we can help", we can do this.

The Waxman-Markey discussion draft is the solid step in the right direction.

The discussion draft creates an International Climate Change Adaptation Program within USAID to provide U.S. assistance to the most vulnerable developing countries for adaptation to climate change.
It also identifies activities and projects for the program to include, among others: promotion of appropriate renewable and efficient energy technologies for increasing community-level resilience to impacts of climate change; development of national or regional adaptation plans; and the protection and rehabilitation of natural ecosystems.
Lastly it provides for the community engagement through, among other criteria, processes for consultation, disclosure of information, and public participation.

This is a good start but the next few weeks and months will be a busy time to help strengthen these critical provisions.

Climate Science Says We CAN’T Move Towards More Tar Sands and Dirty Fuels

2009-02-19T18:25:33Z

We've all been hearing the litany of problems with tar sands from the environmental impacts to the public health consequences. However, how much more needs to happen for our decision makers to act now? Scientists who have specialized in monitoring our climate are speaking out and are joined by large networks of organizations all with a common goal- tackle climate change by promoting effective solutions and preventing actions that make our jobs harder.

Earlier this week, the Climate Action Network in both the United States and Canada sent a letter to President Obama that criticizes the Canadian government's reliance on flawed intensity targets and promotes President Obama's renewable and environmentally sustainable energy path.

The Climate Action Network Canada and the United States Climate Action Network represent more than 100 leading organizations in the U.S. and Canada that are working together to tackle climate change and promote sustainable and equitable solutions.

In their letter they raise concerns with reports that Canadian government officials are trying to use the upcoming trip to Canada as a way to gain protections for the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution in Canada-Alberta's tar sands. It is important that we understand why such an approach is incompatible with where climate science is telling us where we need to be for us to have a shot at preventing irreversible damage.

"Tar Sands are a Double-barreled Threat"

James Hansen, the Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, recently published an Op-Ed and was interviewed about President Obama's trip to Canada and his message was clear: We can't exploit carbon-intensive tar sands because we have overloaded our environment and now there's no more room for more atmospheric carbon dioxide- a global warming pollution causing gas.

As a climate scientist, he raised his concerns with tar sands oil and its devastating climate impacts. He explains that to preserves our coral reefs, arctic sea ice, mountain glaciers and rich biodiversity to name only a few, we need to reverse our current trajectory and quickly. According to Hansen's analysis we need to keep the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide to no more than 350 parts per million (ppm). Sadly, our planet is already at 385 ppm and growing by about 2 ppm each year.

He proposes that we need to address our energy and environment challenges in a way that does not sacrifice the progress of one for the other. They must also be addressed with prompt action. With prompt action, we can do more to prevent irreversible damage to our planet and avert or possibly reverse impacts to our planet that are seemingly inevitable such as the loss of our mountain glaciers, the source of freshwater for billions of people, the destruction of our coral reefs, and more unpredictable and extreme climatic weather events such as droughts and floods with greater frequency.

He comments, that "the tar sands of Canada constitute one of our planet's greatest threats. They are a double-barreled threat. First, producing oil from tar sands emits two to three times the global warming pollution of conventional oil. But the process also diminishes one of the best carbon reduction tools on the planet -- Canada's Boreal Forest."

During a press conference on Tuesday, George Woodwell, Director Emeritus of Woods Hole Research Center and Senior Scientist, raised similar concerns with the immediacy of our climate crisis and noted that global warming is "a matter as serious as nuclear war and we have not realized this possibility." He also stressed the important role Canada's Boreal Forest plays in climate stabilization.

We CAN Help Solve the Climate Crisis

To correct the problem George Woodwell recommended that we need to both manage forests on a global basis and reduce use of fossil fuels. Our need to stabilize the composition of our atmosphere immediately requires, among other things, the cessation of deforestation in our primary forests, improvements in efficiency and use of energy and a shift to renewable energy.

To further Woodwell's recommendations, we also need advancements in low carbon high-efficiency products and phase-out of our use of fossil fuels. This also means that the development of unconventional and synthetic fuels, such as tar sands, oil shale, and liquid coal, present a significant obstacle in our path towards rapid decarbonization. Expansion in these high carbon fuels cannot fit into a science-based climate stabilization pathway. At a time when we are on the brink of real transformative changes and innovation in our access to renewable energy supplies, now is not the time to turn to more fossil fuels and unconventional fuels that are even more greenhouse gas intensive than their conventional counterparts.

The Climate Action Networks in Canada and the U.S. addressed in their letter to President Obama how the energy trade between the U.S. and Canada can shift to renewable energy and technologies for energy efficiency.

Canada is a vast country with prodigious and largely untapped renewable energy potential. Both countries also have world-class expertise in energy efficiency that is waiting for widespread deployment. Studies show that there are more jobs created by investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency than in fossil fuels.

Therefore, they recommended that for our countries to move forward together, Canada needs to overhaul its current approach and raise its level of ambition to have a credible climate change policy. They call for need science-based caps on emissions with auctioning of permits, no special exemptions for any polluting sectors, and global warming solutions in both our countries that lead to real and rapid emission reductions.

As Lord Nicholas Stern has repeatedly said, if we achieve these technology advancements, "We'll still move around, we'll heat our homes - homes will be more efficient and close to zero-carbon electricity. But at the same time it will be cleaner, quieter, more biodiverse, all those things. It will actually be much nicer."

For the first time in 8 years, at the helm of the United States is a leader who is promoting a low-carbon development pathway that focuses on a green economy. This is a very welcome change and one that we hope our President can share with Canada.

Climate Talks Meet Canadian Tar Sands

2008-12-11T10:32:48Z

This week the Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner will make his appearance at the United Nations climate negotiations in Poznan, Poland. What will be important is how Canada frames their global warming pollution and how ambitious their target will be to mitigate this.

We seem to be getting mixed messages from Canada. On one hand, we hear that the technology that captures carbon and sequesters it in underground formations called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is what is needed and will be delivered so Canadian tar sands oil can reduce the amount of global warming pollution this energy intensive process emits. Tar sands are the fastest growing source of global warming pollution in Canada. Currently tar sands are responsible for around 40 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions-nearly the emissions of the Czech Republic-and these emissions may double by 2015.

However, on the other hand, Canada seems to be asking parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to take into account their growth in emissions from their production of tar sands oil when considering what their next commitment period target should be. This comes on the heels of a recent Canadian government analysis that projected a quite high price of carbon needed to move this technology into the tar sands.

So what's Canada doing this week? Until now all Canada has been successful at doing is getting selected for "Fossil Awards". The "Fossil of the Day Award" is a daily "award" given to countries that are being problematic in the negotiations. Usually, three awards are given for three different interventions or actions by country delegations that are disruptive, misleading and generally unhelpful in the negotiations. Canada has racked up an impressive number of these awards, sweeping first, second and third place last week for backpeddling from their commitments and making interventions that do not meet the level of ambition necessary to seriously address global warming.

Canada has failed to address the multitude of environmental problems caused by tar sands oil development. These include the open pit mines, habitat fragmentation, toxic waste holding ponds, air and water pollution, upgraders and refineries, and pipelines spreading far beyond the Boreal forest which is a significant carbon storehouse and is the breeding ground for 30% of North America's songbirds and 40% of our waterfowl. As noted in a recently released report, "Danger in the Nursery: Impact on birds of tarsands oil development in Canada's Boreal forest" this development is destroying habitat for waterfowl and songbirds that come from all over the Americas to nest in the Boreal.

It is the hope of many organizations both here in Poznan and around the world, including those representing environmental groups and indigenous people communities, that Canada begins to halt the expansion of tar sands oil production, address the existing environmental damages, and find solutions to move Canada toward a green economy based on renewable energy.

Melanie’s Top 10 Differences between COP 12 and COP 13

2007-12-09T16:06:51Z

With the first week of the international climate change negotiations (aka the “COP”, acronym for Conference of the Parties) over and the second and final week about to start, this is a good opportunity for me to reflect on the noticeable differences between this year’s COP and last year’s in Nairobi. I think the best way to do this, being a fan of the Late Night Show with David Letterman, was through a “Top 10”.

Melanie’s Top 10 Differences between COP 12 and COP 13

10. Sheer size of venue. Last year’s venue was essentially two blocks of buildings separated by a short walk. This year’s COP is spread over a few hotels up and down the beaches of Nusa Dua, Bali. While one may think it would make for a lovely walk between meetings, when you factor in the humidity and heat, it in fact makes for a very hot walk. Thank goodness the COP has set up a free bike service to help participants get to and from each venue to decrease our global warming impact, but it certainly leaves all of us keeping the deodorant industry in business.

9. Giant inflatable trees outside the conference center. Actually, the more significant difference is not really these giant trees that are only inflated when negotiations are going well, but rather, the attention to the issue of deforestation at this meeting. This is due in part to the urgency of the problem and the significance of it to our location in Indonesia where deforestation is a critical issue. By way of background, forests are important because they do much more than absorb or emit carbon; they also act as storehouses for carbon, support high levels of biodiversity, and offer a wide range of ecosystem services. Forests are also directly linked to the well-being and livelihoods of millions of people, many of whom live in traditional or indigenous communities.

8. Palpable media and press presence in Bali. The day before the conference started Eric Young and I spent walked around the “media tent” to see who was here from the press. While last year the word media “tent” would have been appropriate, this year, to my amazement the media “tent” (which is more of a media “village”) was bustling with people, cameras, and wires everywhere as all the media outlets were preparing for the start of the COP. Since the COP started, it is rare that I walk anywhere without seeing a reporter, an interview in progress, or a camera framing a shot.

7. Australia ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The United States is now truly and officially isolated as a non-ratifying industrialized country.

6. People, people everywhere. The sheer number of participants and observers this year compared to last year—over 15,000 people are expected by the time the high-level segment begins on Wednesday.

5. The dress code. Linen pants, shorts, Capri pants, sandals, where are all the suits? Last year we were uncomfortably warm in our formal suits in Nairobi’s similarly warm climate.

4. Division in the U.S., the “two-faces of the U.S.”. Since the start of the COP, Congress has passed two significant pieces of legislation sending a signal to everyone here that back home the U.S. Congress is taking global warming seriously and ready to step up to the plate to put the U.S. on the right track. This is contrasted with the feeling that maybe leadership in the Congress would change and maybe if we were lucky, the agendas for committee activity would be more to our liking. We could not guess in Nairobi that just a year later we would have a green energy bill and a carbon cap moving out of committee in the Senate.

3. The youth delegation bringing the energy. With over 100 young people from over 12 countries, their presence is apparent and they are bringing exciting energy into the debate and at this conference. While the youth were also active last year in Nairobi, I must say this year, they are really capturing the attention of delegates and media—indicated by the large spectator and media presence every night at 6 pm for the daily presentation of the “fossil” awards (awards given out to the top 3 countries who were problematic to progress during that day’s negotiations).

“Polar Youth”: Youth outside the conference center dressed as polar bears.

2. Focus on adaptation. Thanks in part due to the IPCC Report by nearly 2,000 of the world’s leading climate scientists, there is a feeling that in the international climate change context, it is now assumed that adaptation and mitigation need to be addressed together. Discussions here are no longer just about mitigation, but also adaptation. In fact, it is now the “rainy” season in Bali and yet, I have used my umbrella only once in the past seven days. All the local residents I’ve spoken with express their surprise with the unseasonably dry weather during this time of year. I can’t help but feel that I am seeing climate change’s impacts first hand, including impacts such as unpredictable weather patterns.

1. Positive momentum after week one. As we gear up for next week’s high-level segment, I am encouraged by all the draft text being generated by delegates. This pen to paper is promising when last year we were still in discussion mode after week one and for much of week two as well.