emissions

The voluntary emissions reduction market is still the "Wild West" of corporate greenhouse gas target-setting, in software maker Autodesk's view. Companies are not held accountable for verifying or explaining the emissions they report, nor is there any central body monitoring whether they meet the emissions reduction promises that they make to their customers and their stock holders.

Solar power technologies could generate 15 percent of America's power in 10 years, but only if Washington levels the playing field on subsidies, a report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) says.

That means either rolling back fossil fuel subsidies, as President Obama proposed earlier this year, or increasing subsidies for clean energy, the association says.

Fossil fuels received $72 billion in total federal subsidies from 2002 to 2008, keeping prices artificially low, according to figures from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). About 98 percent of that went to conventional energy sources, namely coal and oil, leading to more emissions. The rest, $2.3 billion, was pumped into a new technology to trap and store carbon dioxide spewed by coal plants.

During that same period, solar got less than $1 billion, according to the SEIA, a trade group representing 1,100 solar companies across the nation.

Reporting from Copenhagen

U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton tossed the ball into China’s court during a press conference this morning by quoting a Chinese proverb: “When you are in a common boat, you have to cross the river peacefully together.”

Those who know Chinese proverbs said she did so intentionally to “publicly put China on the spot.” Clinton’s statement concluded by stressing the need to come to an agreement on transparency.

This afternoon, China tossed the ball away, intimating that it would not play the United States’ game.

Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs He Yafei agrees that transparency is necessary and said China would fulfill its emissions targets in a transparent manner consistent with respect for national sovereignty and with the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol and Bali roadmaps — international regimes the U.S. has agreed to.

The key question is whether, left to its own devices and agreeing to continue reporting to the UNFCCC, China can do transparency and if its data can be trusted.

Reporting from Copenhagen

China and the U.S. spent much of last week goading each other on impassible positions.

The Chinese, on behalf of developing country colleagues in the G77, want developed countries to live up to their “historic responsibility” for climate change and provide enough funding for adaptation and mitigation to help developing countries face the challenges posed by climate change.

The U.S., while offering money to developing countries, denied that China is still a developing country.

By Janet Wilson, DC Bureau

Part IV in the four-part series No Safe Harbor about the shipping industry's emissions problems

LONG BEACH, Calif. — Massive cargo ships have long motored into the nation’s busiest ports here and next door in Los Angeles, trailing plumes of sulfurous soot. They disgorge containers of toys, VCR’s and sneakers, then chug out again loaded with scrap tin and waste paper. They are literally the slow boats to and from China, Singapore, and Japan, mighty container ships that have managed to elude air pollution regulation for half a century.

After decades of belching bilious emissions skyward from aging engines and highly polluting fuel, these and other trans-oceanic ships may be forced to clean up their act a bit.

By Adam Sarvana, DC Bureau

Part III in the four-part series No Safe Harbor about the shipping industry's emissions problems

When it comes to the pace of regulating deadly shipping emissions, not everyone is content to adopt a wait and see (or “follow the IMO”) attitude. As it has done before, California recently passed its own regulation in the absence of federal standards. Since July 1, any ship longer than 400 feet or heavier than 10,000 gross tons has been required to limit its sulfur fuel content to 5,000 ppm, dropping to 1,000 ppm in 2012, within 24 miles of the state’s coastline.

Now that the dust has settled on last week's UNFCCC Bonn climate talks, one thing is clear: The United States must be the architect and protector of a meaningful post-Kyoto global climate change deal, and it's not there yet.

The lack of strong U.S. commitments on vital issues – medium-term mitigation targets and financing for developing nations – clouded the two-week talks, even as President Obama's delegation wowed nations with its much-heralded international debut.

That was the general conclusion, at least, of green groups at a wrap-up press conference led by the U.S. Climate Action Network (full video available here).

In a nutshell, they said, the world's appreciation of Obama's re-engagement is high. But expectations for stronger leadership from the new president are much higher.

Congressman Ed Markey hinted today at how CO2 emissions allowances might be divvied up under a national cap-and-trade program. He also spelled out a strong incentive for detractors in Congress to change their tune – three letters: EPA.

Markey, the chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee and one of the architects of the comprehensive climate bill headed for Congress, was speaking at a symposium on climate legislation at MIT along with President Obama’s chief advisor on energy and climate change, Carol Browner, and presidential science advisor John Holdren.

An audience member asked how quickly the proposed cap-and-trade program would reach 100 percent auction of the emissions allowances.

Markey's answer made it clear that cap-and-trade won't start with a 100 percent auction and that the Obama administration is concerned about the impact on competitive trade, particularly when it comes to China:

“Initially, at least, we have to set aside a certain amount of the carbon credits to ensure that the steel, the paper and other trade-sensitive, energy-intensive industries are not exploited in the near term by the Chinese and others in terms of them taking advantage of this increased cost.

"Right off the top, we cannot auction off all those credits.”

Read More

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Stacy Morford's blog
• 1 comment

China appears to be backing out of global efforts to address climate change.

In a move certain to intensify the pre-Copenhagen debate over greenhouse gas reduction targets, a top China central government think tank this week released a framework for quantifying countries' historical emissions.

Under the proposed framework, the State Council Development Research Center (DRC) would create a "historic account" of past emissions and use it to benchmark developing countries that have had lower accumulated emissions over time – like China – against countries with higher accumulated emissions, such as the United States. It would then assign emissions "deficits" to countries that have emitted less.

Using this quantitative assessment, countries with emissions "deficits" would get the green light to emit more greenhouse gases, or they could trade emissions credits with countries that have exceeded their allowances.

The release of this plan supports external analysis that China believes it should have the right to continue to develop free from carbon restrictions until its accumulated emissions are on par with industrialized countries.

Inaction is action when it comes to climate change.

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson drove that point home yesterday when she announced she would review a Bush-era memo stating that carbon dioxide is not a "regulated pollutant" under the Clean Air Act.

Within hours, Jackson’s “hold on, let’s think about this” announcement was reverberating through the energy industry.

AES Corporation, one of the world’s largest power companies with almost $14 billion in revenues in 2007, announced it would withdraw an application to build a new coal-fired power plant in Oklahoma. The company, which would not comment beyond its three-sentence announcement because it is in a quiet period before announcing quarterly earnings, said the decision to withdraw plans for the 600MW plant was “part of our broader strategy to re-evaluate our growth plans.”

The EPA review effectively put a moratorium on all coal-fired plant projects, says David Bookbinder, Chief Climate Counsel for the Sierra Club, which asked the EPA to reconsider the Dec. 18, 2008, memo from ex-agency Administrator Stephen Johnson.

Proposed coal plants on federal land, such as the Bonanza Plant in Utah and the White Pine and Tuquop plants in Nevada, are already on hold. In Florida, a Seminole Electric plant in Palatka under litigation could have its permit revoked if the EPA decides to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.