Health Consequences of Global Warming
A Conference: Health Consequences of Global Warming: Examining the Links; Breaking the Chains
Friday – Sunday September 14 – 16, 2007
Hotel Veto Conference Center 201 S. Linn St Iowa City, IA
Jointly sponsored by: The University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine and Physicans for Social Responsibility, in cooperation with the University of Iowa Center for Human Rights, Global and Regional Environmental Research, and College of Public Health.
Introducing the Challenge: Halting Climate Change Addressing Health and Human Rights Links
- Introducing Climate Change Science and Wedges, Jerry Schnoor PhD
- Introducing Human Rights Issues, Burns Weston LL.B, JSD
- Introducing Public Health Concerns, Jim Merchant MD PhD
- Michael McCally MD PhD, Executive Director, National PSR, Challenge of Global Warming to Preserving Global Health
- Redefining Security, Catherine Thomasson MD
- Introducing Student Groups’ Responses to Global Climate Change
- How Cuba Survived Peak Oil. Film, Maureen McCue MD PhD
- Faith Based Responses to Goobal Warming, Mark Kresowik & Lynn Heuss
- Invoking the Precautionary Principle, Carolyn Raffensperger JD
- UNA Process on Global Warming, Katy Hanson, Kate Karchay, Douglas Taylor PhD & Jerry Schnoor PhD
Saturday, September 15
9:00 AM Opening Keynote- Michael A. McGeehin PhD MSPH, Climate Change, Myriad Threats to Global Health: From Malaria Movement & Complex Disasters to Failing Food Production
9:45 AM Plenary Panel II
Linked Threats to Health and Environment: Current Energy Sources- Health Threats of Auto-Centered Cities, Catherine Thomasson MD
- Ports, Trade & Transit: Health Threats to Workers, Neighborhoods, and the Global Climate, Andrea Hricko MPH
- Nuclear Power’s Insurmountable Risks, Arjun Makhijani PhD
11:30 AM Plenary Panel III
Collateral Damage: Overlooked Health Costs of Disasters- Disasters–Loss and Mental Health–Challenge, Curt H. Drennen PsyD
- Disasters–Challenges to Maintaining Research and Care, Tyler Curiel MD MPH
- Unstable Climate–Challenges to Global Food/Water Security, Douglas Taylor PhD
1:15 PM Luncheon Speaker:
- Michael Klare PhD, Blood and Oil–Further Dangers and Consequences of Dependency on Petroleum
- “Low Carbon Diet”– Food Production with Low Carbon Emissions, Rich Pirog
- Consumption, Denial, and Fear, Fred Myer MA and Carolyn Raffensperger JD
- Iowa’s Uniquely Unhealthy Energy Options (Coal, Bio-fuels, Nuclear), Mark Kresowik BA, Alana Stamas, and Michele Kenyon Brown
- Healthy Sustainable Businesses–Incorporating Environmentally Friendly Practices, Peter Barnes MA, Fred Kirschenmann PhD, Geoff Willming, Matt Bulle
- Environmental Ethics, Voluntary Initiatives vs. Legal Imperatives to Heal Our Planet, Burns Weston LL.B, JSD and Andy Jameton PhD
- War, Global Warming, Public Health, and Opportunity Costs, Victor Sidel MD and William Hartung
3:30 PM Plenary Panel IV
Global Warming, Health and Human Rights Links- The Arctic Bellwether–Impact of Energy Extraction, & Use on Health and Human Rights of World’s Indigenous, Marginalized & Poorest, Donald Goldberg JD
- Healthcare of Poor, Minorities, Marginalized Before, During, After Katrina, Ravi Vadlamudi MD
- Promoting and Attaining a Healthy, Rights Based Paradigm, Michael Dworkin JD
- Confronting Coal, Bruce Nilles JD
- Concerned Scientists, Health Care Providers, Arjun Makhijani PhD and Catherine Thomasson MD
- Student Groups—Student PSR, AMSA, ESW, Global Pulse Leader
- Concerned Business Leaders, Peter Barnes MA, Fred Kirschenmann PhD, Geoff Willming, Matt Bulle
- Faith Based/Religious Leaders, Ben & Cathy Webb, others
- Law Makers, Rights Based, Andy Jameton RN PhD, Carolyn Raffensperger JD, and Ed Fallon BA
- Indigenous Peoples, Minorities, Labor, Mike McCally MD PhD, Ravi Vadlamudi MD MPH, and Dan Holub JD
Sunday, September 16
9:00 AM Opening Inspirational Remarks- Imperatives of Tikkun Olam, Gerald Sorokin
- Cool Congregations–Compelling Commitments, Rev. Ben Webb
- Peter Barnes MA, Introducing the Sky Trust to Protect the Atmosphere
10:15 AM Plenary Panel VI
Good News: Cases of Humane Healthy Living Through Sustainable Energy- How the West Coast is coming Clean & Green, Catherine Thomasson MD
- Cool Cities, Mark Kresowik BA and Frank Cownie (invited),
- UCS, Assessing the National Legislative Frontier: The Good Bad, and Nonexistent, Rich Dana
11:30 AM Plenary Panel VII
Developing Coalitions, Learning from Others, Working Together Toward a Healthy, Secure, Sustainable Future, Saturday Workshop Leaders Report Results & Consult Audience Members
Confronting the Global Triple Crisis
The International Forum on Globalization, The Institute for Policy Studies, and The Project on Economic Transitions will hold a teach-in on September 14-16.
The event will cover various topics including:
- Climate Change
- Peak Oil (The End of the Era of Cheap Energy)
- Global Resource Depletion (And Species Extinction)
- Powering-Down for the Future (Toward an International Movement for Systemic Change: New Economies of Sustainability, Equity, Sufficiency and Peace)
60 SPEAKERS INCLUDING: Vandana Shiva, Bill McKibben, Michael Klare, Martin Khor, Richard Heinberg, Winona LaDuke, David Korten, John Cavanagh, Jerry Mander, Maude Barlow, Tony Clarke, Wolfgang Sachs, Sara Larrain, Meena Raman, Ross Gelbspan, Q’Orianka Kilcher, Frances Moore-Lappe, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Helena Norberg-Hodge, Daphne Wysham, Victor Menotti, Atossa Soltani, David Suzuki, Simon Retallack, Jeremy Leggett, Arjun Makhijani, David Pimentel, John Passacantando, Rob Hopkins, Steve Kretzmann, Antony Froggatt, Randy Hayes, Anne Leonard, Megan Quinn, Thomas Princen and 25 more.
The Teach-In will be held at Lisner Auditorium, George Washington University, Washington DC.
Tickets and information are available from: International Forum on Globalization 415-561-7650
National Academies Critiques U.S. Climate Change Science Program
- A major hurdle to CCSP progress is the program director’s lack of authority to allocate or prioritize funding across participating agencies.
- Discovery science and understanding of the climate system are proceeding well, but use of that knowledge to support decision making and to manage risks and opportunities of climate change is proceeding slowly.
- Progress in understanding and predicting climate change has improved more at global, continental, and ocean basin scales than at regional and local scales.
- Our understanding of the impact of climate changes on human well-being and vulnerabilities is much less developed than our understanding of the natural climate system.
- Science quality observation systems have fueled advances in climate change science and applications, but many existing and planned observing systems (satellite missions) have been cancelled, delayed, or degraded, presenting perhaps the single greatest threat to the future success of CCSP.
- Progress in communicating CCSP results and engaging stakeholders is inadequate.
The Committee on Strategic Advice was established by the National Research Council of the National Academies at the request of the director of the CCSP.
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program is the umbrella organization for the interagency U.S. Global Climate Research Group established by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, and Bush’s 2001 Climate Change Research Initiative to study uncertainty in climate research.
See also Andrew Revkin’s piece for the New York Times.
The committee is holding a workshop in Washington, D.C., Oct. 15-17, to discuss future priorities for CCSP research, which will be the focus of its follow-up report.
S.2017, to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to provide for national energy efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps
Witnesses
Panel 1- The Honorable Alexander Karsner, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Panel 2
- Kyle Pitsor, Vice President of Government Relations, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
- Mr. Steven Nadel, Executive Director, American Council for an Energy-Efficent Economy
The world’s three largest lighting companies, long at odds over a way to eliminate inefficient incandescent light bulbs in use for 125 years, now favor Senate legislation (S. 2017) over a House-passed measure [H.R.2751, Sec. 9021 of H.R.3221] some say will outlaw all but the spiral-shaped compact fluorescent bulbs.Royal Philips Electronics NV in Amsterdam, the world’s largest light-bulb maker, Munich-based Siemens AG and General Electric Co., based in Fairfield, Connecticut, support a bill introduced last week by Senator Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat.
The measure would phase out incandescent light bulbs by 2014 and replace them with light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, halogen bulbs, compact fluorescent lamps, or CFLs, and higher efficiency lights. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which Bingaman chairs, held a hearing on the plan today.
The House bill would require a further improvement by 2020 in efficiency that industry representatives do not support because they say it would rule out bulbs they are developing to meet the 2014 standard.
“If you tell us that the products we have to spend millions of dollars bringing to market in 2014 will become obsolete in 2020, it’s very difficult for a company to go to their shareholders and say that’s an investment worth making,” said Randy Moorhead, vice president of government affairs for Philips Electronic North America, a division of Royal Philips.
House and Senate aides said today they hoped to reconcile differences in the proposals in negotiations on energy legislation, which currently is bogged down in Congress.
Energy ConservationDowagiac Daily News:Growing certainty that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the Earth’s atmosphere has spawned proposals from governments and industry to conserve energy. The Senate legislation would save 88 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, according to a Bingaman statement, or enough to power more than 11 million homes.
Greenhouse gas emissions would be cut by 500 million tons annually, or 1.5 percent, by replacing incandescent light bulbs worldwide, Paul Waide, a policy analyst at the International Energy Agency, said at the Senate hearing. He said that would be the equivalent of “installing 100 times current U.S. wind generation capacity in lieu of unsequestered coal-fired power plants.”
Replacing Bulbs
Under the Senate proposal, beginning in 2012 and continuing through 2014, the current 40-watt, 60-watt, 75-watt and 100-watt incandescent bulbs, which now number 4 billion in U.S. homes and businesses, will be replaced by lower wattage bulbs that produce equivalent amounts of light. Bingaman’s bill would allow for a reevaluation of how to raise standards in 2020.
The House bill requires existing wattage lights to be brighter, which industry and environmental groups say will lead to more efficiency, although not necessarily to energy savings. The House measure then requires efficiency gains by 2020 that industry says are untenable.
The House plan would raise lighting efficiency by about 30 percent by 2014 and by 75 percent by 2020.
“If it stays the way it is now, as far as we know now, it is basically a CFL standard,” Earl Jones, senior counsel for the consumer and industrial division of GE, said of the House bill. He said new technology could develop, however Congress should not lock in an approach now to be mandated in 2020.
GE, Siemens’ Osram-Sylvania and Philips are planning different kinds of new products that would not meet the House’s long-range standards.
‘Tough’ Standards
Representative Jane Harman, a chief sponsor of the House bill, said the two bills were not all that far apart and she would compromise on how savings are measured. She would not support a less stringent bill.
“The standards are going to stay tough,” the California Democrat said in an interview after testifying at the hearing. “We are not watering down savings.”
Harman wants states to be able to preempt the federal standard until 2020. Bingaman wants no state preemption. Harman said that issue would not lead to the measure’s downfall.
Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, who testified at the hearing, said the Senate bill will save a little more energy than the House bill through 2020, and a little less than the House bill through 2030.
Nadel said the Senate bill should be toughened in ways industry does not support. For example efficiency groups want lawmakers to close loopholes that would allow less efficient lighting products to be exempted from the rules.
“I could think of a dozen ways that I could evade these standards without any trouble,” Nadel said of loopholes in the Bingaman bill.
To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel Whitten in Washington at [email protected]
Congressman Fred Upton (R – St. Joseph) testified this morning before the U.S. Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee on his bipartisan amendment to transform the country’s lighting industry from obsolete, inefficient incandescent light bulbs toward higher-efficiency standards. Upton, a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and California Democrat Jane Harman are leading the effort to promote energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Both Upton and Harman testified during the hearing to examine “Energy Efficiency Standards for Incandescent Lamps.” Upton’s bipartisan amendment, supported by both environmental and industry groups, was included in a broad energy package that passed the U.S. House in early August.
“We must examine other solutions in addition to conservation as energy consumption across the globe is expected to increase approximately 50 percent by 2030,” said Upton. “Current incandescent bulbs on store shelves are obsolete and highly inefficient – only 10 percent of the energy consumed by each bulb is for light with 90 percent wasted on unnecessary heat. With more efficient bulbs, we will dramatically lower our energy use, reducing greenhouse gases as well as saving American families billions of dollars in their electric bills – and the benefits will be as easy as a flip of the switch. Every home will be on the front lines in the effort to reduce pollution and save energy, and we will be successful one light bulb at a time. I am confident that the Senate will embrace our common sense, bipartisan approach that partners with American industry to substantially reduce pollution.”
Across the nation, the environmental and economic benefits of more efficient bulbs will be substantial.
High efficiency bulbs will result in the:
- Reduction in electricity demand equal to the output of 23 nuclear plants;
- Reduction of airborne mercury emissions from coal burning plants – 4,500 lbs;
- Reduction in annual Carbon Dioxide emissions – 120 million tons; and
- $14 billion in reduced electricity costs for consumers.
The amendment sets technology-neutral performance standards to replace today’s inefficient 100 watt, 75 watt, 60 watt and 40 watt incandescent lights with a mix of products (halogen, compact fluorescent, high-efficiency incandescent, and LED’s) that will result in efficiency gains exceeding 50%. Starting in July 2012 , the 100 watt incandescent will be completely phased out, with the 75, 60 and 40 watt bulbs phased out for more efficient bulbs in 2014, 2015 and 2018 respectively. The transition will result in the annual phasing-out of the production of 2 billion inefficient incandescent bulbs. Upton and Harman worked very closely with industry and environmentalists to craft common sense legislation that seeks to clean up the environment, all the while protecting American jobs.
Upton and Harman are also leading the effort to require that each agency, department, and office within the Federal Government, beginning Oct. 1, 2007, purchase light bulbs that meet the Department of Energy’s “Energy Star” efficiency ratings. Their bipartisan amendment has been included in every spending bill that has passed the House.
Club of Madrid Proposal for a Post-Kyoto Framework
Yesterday the Club of Madrid, the organization of 66 democratic former heads of stated, unveiled a proposal for the international climate change framework to be developed at the Conferences of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali this December. Glenn Hurwitz covers the proposal at Grist.
The brief summary: An international framework with a global target of 60% below 1990 levels by 2050; developed countries should be at 30% below by 2020 and rapidly developing countries should lower their energy intensity by 30% by 2020 and follow emissions targets thenceforth. A carbon price should be set by a globally linked cap-and-trade system with auctioned credits or preferably by universal carbon taxes. $20 billion should be spent annually on energy R&D and an annual fund of $50 billion should go to developing countries for adaptation, avoided deforestation, and clean energy development and deployment—the latter including renewable energy and energy efficiency. IP barriers to clean energy technologies should be dropped.
The full recommendations are past the break.
1. Bali: In addition to setting a timetable for negotiating a comprehensive post-2012 agreement, the Parties should agree in Bali on four pathways for negotiation that address mitigation, adaptation, technology, and finance. Initial draft articles should be presented to the Conference of the Parties in 2008 as a first step towards concluding a new and comprehensive agreement in 2009.
2. UNFCCC: Given the scale of response required, and in order to avoid the most adverse impacts of climate change, there should be a comprehensive post-2012 agreement under the auspices of the UNFCCC. Targeted agreements – for example, on industrial sectors, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and technology cooperation – should be encouraged and incorporated within a new comprehensive agreement.
3. Targets and timetables: All countries should commit to reduce collectively global emissions by at least 60% below the 1990 level by 2050. Developed countries should take the lead in emissions reduction by adopting effective targets and timetables. As a first step, this could include a commitment to reduce their collective emissions by 30% by 2020. Rapidly industrializing countries should commit to reduce their energy intensity by 30% by 2020 (an average of 4% per year) and agree to emissions reduction targets afterwards. Other developing countries should commit to an energy intensity target differentiated by their responsibilities and capabilities. The international community should develop a monitoring and review system and clear criteria for determining when and how various categories of countries should assume stronger climate commitments.
4. Renewable energy and energy efficiency: Long-term policies, as well as measurable and verifiable targets, should be adopted by all countries to increase substantially the use of renewable energy and to promote greater efficiency in energy production and use. In addition, global standards for end-use efficiency should be developed and adopted.
5. Avoided deforestation: To reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide cost-effectively, a full range of interventions to create and maintain biological sinks of carbon should be included in a post-2012 climate change regime in order to capture the many co-benefits of sustainable livelihoods, land management, forestry, and biodiversity conservation.
6. Carbon pricing: In order to deliver the greatest climate benefits efficiently and effectively, a carbon price should be set through carbon taxes or trading. The preferable mechanism is a system of harmonized, universal carbon taxes. For a cap-and-trade system, well functioning and financially linked carbon markets need to be developed across the globe, incorporating various national and regional cap-and-trade programs. Emissions allowances should be auctioned, thus raising resources that can be allocated by national governments for other purposes, such as clean energy development and adaptation.
7. Adaptation: A post-2012 climate agreement should address both mitigation and adaptation. Adaptation should be seen as part of sustainable development and strategies to alleviate poverty. It should include vulnerability assessments, enhancing resilience to climate impacts, access to information and best practices, building human and institutional capacity, and making public and private investments in developing countries less susceptible to climate change. A substantial package of financial support, including public and private funds, should be established (see Recommendation 11). Centers for Adaptation in Agriculture should be established, particularly by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research in Africa.
8. Energy R&D: Recent declines in investments for energy research and development should be reversed. Research, development and demonstration of more efficient and less costly energy technologies, such as advanced solar thermal technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage, should be a high priority. Aggregate public expenditures should be increased to US$20 billion per year.
9. Clean energy deployment: In order to tackle climate change at the requisite scale, clean energy technologies should be made available and utilized by all countries. All developing countries, especially rapidly industrializing countries, should have access to clean energy technologies on preferential terms. The barriers that hamper the dissemination of such technologies in developing countries, such as intellectual property rights and competitive rules, should be overcome. In order to encourage collaboration on a “clean technology revolution,” the formation of a “Consultative Group on Clean Energy Research” should be considered as part of a global climate agreement. Innovation targets to bring new technologies to market, as well as incentives for meeting them, should also be considered.
10. Sustainable development financing: The Clean Development Mechanism should be reformed in order to deliver its full potential during the 2008-2012 commitment period, and in the post-2012 regime an additional market mechanism should support sectoral approaches capable of transforming whole sectors of rapidly industrializing countries at a speed commensurate with the challenge of taking emissions reductions to global scale.
11. Funding: Finance is a critical element of any strategy to address climate change effectively. A climate fund of additional resources, starting at US$10 billion and growing to US$50 billion per year, should be established to support climate change activities in developing countries (adaptation, avoided deforestation, and clean energy development and deployment) and should include both public and private resources. It should have an innovative structure and governance that is transparent and inclusive. In addition, existing mechanisms, such as the Global Environment Facility and the Multilateral Development Banks, should be strengthened and their resources enhanced to continue their important work in demonstrating new approaches, building human and institutional capacity, and leveraging private finance.
Carbon Markets USA 1
San Francisco, 11-12 September 2007
As the GHG market transitions from voluntary trading to compliance with state (and surely soon federal) requirements, projections are that the annual global volumes of GHG credits will increase from $21.6m (2006) to reach $60 billion and may eventually top $1 trillion.
This unique meeting will bring together the leading US and International experts together for two days of intense, information rich presentations, debates and networking. Understand how one of the World’s largest future commodity markets will develop and impact upon your business.
Speakers- Commissioner Jeffrey Byron, California Energy Commission
- Terry Tamminen, Energy & Environmental Advisor to Governor Schwarzenegger
- Allen Alley, Deputy Chief of Staff, Governor’s Office, State of Oregon
- Richard Saines, Partner, Baker & McKenzie, USA
- Veronique Bugnion, Managing Director, Point Carbon, USA
- David N. Reschke, Noble Carbon Credits, Canada
- Ian Carter, Policy Coordinator, North America, International Emissions Trading Association IETA, Canada
- Thomas D. Peterson, Executive Director, The Center for Climate Strategies, USA
- Angus Duncan, Oregon Carbon Allocation Task Force, USA
- Doug Scott, Chair, Illinois Climate Change Advisory Group, USA
- Josh Bushinsky, Western Policy Coordinator, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, USA
- Gia Schneider, Vice President, Credit Suisse, USA
- Imtiaz Ahmad, VP, Morgan Stanley, UK
- Blake Schaefer, Director, Global Environmental Finance, Stark Investments
- Roger Williams, VP – Portfolio Development, Blue Source
- Marc Stuart, Co-founder, Director of New Business Development, EcoSecurities
- Barbara McKee, Director CSLF, Chair IEA Working Party on Fossil Fuels & Director of Clean Energy Collaboration, DOE, USA
- George Peridas, Science Fellow, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council
- Arthur Lee, CSLF Stakeholder; Principal Advisor, Global Policy & Strategy, Chevron, U.S.A
- Len Eddy, Managing Director, Agcert International, Canada
- David B. Layzell, President and CEO, BIOCAP Canada Foundation, Canada
- Richard A. Birdsey, Program Manager, Global Change Research, USDA Forest Service
- Doug Wikizer, Chief Environmental Protection and Regulations, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, USA
- Lisa Jacobson, Executive Director, Business Council for Sustainable Energy, USA
- Nathan Clark, Director, Offset Projects/Economist, Chicago Climate Exchange, USA
- Ricardo Bayon, Director, The Ecosystem Marketplace
- Cameron Brooks, VP – Resource Development, Renewable Choice Energy
- Mike Bess, General Manager North America, Europe and Africa, Camco International, UK
- Meg Gottstein, Administrative Law Judge, California Public Utilities Commission
- Ned Helme, President, CCAP, Center for Clean Air Policy, USA
- Frank T. Princiotta, Director of the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USA
APEC Climate Agreement
According to the Associated Press, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit set a voluntary target of reducing energy intensity (the ratio of energy consumption per unit of GDP) 25 percent by 2030. In addition, Australia and Russia announced an agreement on a “long-term global aspirational goal for stabilising and then reducing greenhouse gas emissions” and to “allow the supply of Australian uranium for use in Russia’s civil nuclear power industry.”
As the BBC explains, the reductions in energy intensity would not lead to any reduction in GHG emissions. In fact, a 49% reduction in energy intensity by 2050, given projected economic growth, translates to a rise in greenhouse gas emissions of about 15%.
Andrew Dessler has more at Gristmill on what he calls the “intensity scam.”
Coverage of Coal Hearing
Grist’s Brian Beutler covers yesterday’s Global Warming Committee hearing on The Future of Coal Under Cap and Trade:
Here are two takes on the issue, from two sources that couldn’t be more deeply at odds with each other. Both suggest coal may yet see its heyday.The first comes from Michael Morris, CEO of American Electric Power, who testified at the hearing. He supports, in the same tepid way that many energy companies now do, an economy-wide cap-and-trade program with carbon credits allocated freely. (His justification for this might just represent one of the great moments in the history of inadvertent honesty: “We believe that credits ought to be allocated to those who will invest the capital to make a difference in the environment, rather than an auction so that those who buy them can make money by the positions they have taken.” In other words, give energy companies the allocations because we’re already rich and don’t award the innovators for beating us to the punch.) One of Moore’s other main points was that coal companies won’t begin installing CCS equipment until CCS “has been demonstrated to be effective, and the costs have significantly dropped so that it becomes commercially available on a widespread basis.”
He’s certainly not the only person who thinks it’s politically infeasible to impose drastic, costly policies on the coal industry—and that therefore carbon-based energy companies have the world by the political balls. Robert Sussman, an environmental expert testifying on behalf of the Center for American Progress, said, “unfortunately, our analysis indicates that the initial stages of cap-and-trade programs [do not] not make carbon prices high enough to eliminate cost differentials” between clean and dirty coal plants.
That points toward two possibilities: We could ratchet up the regulatory impact of climate-change legislation, or we could subsidize the hell out of CCS.
At the end of the hearing, Sussman suggested that the Congress set a date (specifically the year 2016) by which CCS technology be standardized, saying the cost of such a hasty transition would require $35 billion to $40 billion in research subsidies.
As a consolation prize, David Hawkins, director of the Climate Center at NRDC, proposed that the marginal costs of outfitting coal plants with CCS technology should be paid directly by consumers (a green incentive) and not by direct tax subsidies. Woot?
APEC
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit is this weekend in Sydney, Australia, and President Bush will be there. APEC includes 21 countries surrounding the Pacific Ocean, including the US, Australia, China, Mexico, and Japan. A primary topic of discussion will be climate change, which the administration is highlighting.
On September 4, Bush and Prime Minister Howard released a joint announcement on climate change that “agreed today on the importance of confronting the interlinked challenges of climate change, energy security and clean development” and the goal of achieving an international agreement in Bali that “provides for effective action from all the major emitting nations toward the UNFCCC objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. The upcoming APEC statement on climate change and the outcome of the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change in Washington DC on Spetember 27-28 will indicate the US negotiating position for the UN conference.
What specifics are in the agreement?- Fighting deforestation (i.e. getting credit under international agreements for forests, Australia’s Global Intitiative on Forests and Climate)
- Increasing free trade
- Expanded nuclear power (Generation IV International Forum and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership)
- reduced pollution technology investment (Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate)
- Coal gasification (the FutureGen International Partnership)
- Other multilateral partnerships (the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, the Methane to Markets Partnership, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, and the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy)
On the White House website EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson will be taking questions on Friday, September 7 at 12:45 pm EDT.
AVAAZ has a international petition calling for action on global warming at the APEC summit with over 400,000 co-signers.
The U.S. is working closely with Australia and other APEC countries to address broadly the challenges posed by climate change. Among the topics for discussion will be energy efficiency, forestry, technology development, alternative energy, low-carbon energy, and importantly, continuing efforts to reduce barriers to trade in environmental goods and services.
In response to a question, Price indicated that climate change will be an issue in the bilateral discussions for many of the countries, not just Australia.
And the President has made it very clear, both in Heilingendamm during the G8 meetings, that the problem of climate cannot be responsibly addressed unless all of the major economies are at the table, including those represented by the developing world. And nine of those are APEC members. So working cooperatively with our APEC partners, as we’ve begun to do under the Asian Pacific Partnership, and carrying that plan forward through the bilateral leader meetings and through the summit discussions is very high on the agenda.Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality, had this to say:
As you know, we had the big breakthrough in Heilingendamm this year, right after the President’s speech on May 31st, and that’s with sort of the G8 grouping. At that time we had the plus-5, but they were not part of the leaders declaration on this. This is our chance in the APEC region, which represents these 21 nations, and a good combination of developing and highly-developed nations, to really set the foundation in that region for a shared understanding on a way forward on the energy security and climate issues.So we’ll take what occurred in Europe and now try to advance that in terms of toward common consensus in Asia. We’ve been very encouraged because a lot of the thinking behind the President’s proposal in May was a result—you asked about Asia and how much time we’re spending there. Well, I’ve spent a ton of time in Asia, talking with the leadership in China, Japan, South Korea. I was just in Indonesia. So there’s a lot of interest in the Asia Pacific region taking on more of a proactive role in this area.
And I think you’ll see that with Prime Minister Howard. He put this on the agenda for the first time in APEC since it was formed. So that’s a big shift. And we’re hearing from Indonesia, China, South Korea, these countries that didn’t have obligations before—you’re hearing some very positive statements from their leadership on the importance of this integrated agenda on energy and clean air and climate. And that’s because the region is growing so fast, too. They’re struggling with these environmental challenges in a more consequential way now. And that, I think, paves the way for more constructive conversation.