U.S. President Barack Obama proposed a federal budget today that would begin to tip the scales away from fossil fuels and toward greater government investment in clean energy.
It would eliminate several fossil fuel subsidies, a move expected to generate about $36 billion for the federal government over the next 10 years, and increase clean energy research and development spending by about $6 billion.
To sweeten the deal for Republicans and fossil fuel-state Democrats, the president piled on loan guarantees for nuclear power and reiterated his support for a nuclear revival, more off-shore drilling, and “clean coal” technology, which was heavily funded through the recovery act last year. In addition, the new budget offers only a passing reference to a future cap-and-trade program, describing it as carbon neutral rather than assuming it would generate revenue.
Whether Congress can carry through on the president's recommendations remains to be seen, however.
Massachusetts voters go to the polls today to elect a replacement for the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, and the outcome could have serious implications for climate legislation.
This election will make or break the Democrats’ current 60-vote majority in the Senate, which is just enough right now to end a Republican filibuster. Much of the national discussion centers on the health care bill, which Republican candidate Scott Brown opposes. But a Republican victory also would likely mean defeat for cap-and-trade legislation this year.
After two weeks observing the climate negotiations in Copenhagen, I’ve taken my time reacting to the outcome. There has been a great deal to digest. But as the dust begins to settle, it’s clear Copenhagen has spawned two principal conversations around the world.
The first is a postmortem on what happened, or didn’t happen, at COP15, the long-anticipated United Nations 15th Conference of the Parties.
The climate accord announcement is legitimately catching some heat for being too little, too late. The enormity of the crisis cries out for strong binding pollution reduction targets by all countries and massive infusions of public and private capital to catalyze a fast-track transition to a low-carbon economy.
But expecting we’d get all this at COP15 was never realistic. That’s why leading U.S. businesses such as Nike, PG&E and North Face are encouraged by these first positive steps from Copenhagen.
“Takes note of: That is a way of recognizing what is there without going so far as to directly associate yourself with it.”
That's how UN climate chief Yvo de Boer described the fate of the Copenhagen Accord this morning. World leaders had hammered out what they thought was an international climate change agreement, only to watch the Sudanese speaker for the G77, Lumumba Di-Aping, shred it in 20 minutes during a midnight press conference.
With unanimous approval of the accord out of the question, officials came up with this solution: The Conference of Parties "took note" of the Copenhagen Accord but did not formally adopt it.
How the non-binding Copenhagen Accord will function from here, particularly its financial mechanisms, is unclear, legal experts say. While recognized, it exists outside of all previous agreements, and only those countries that explicitly associate with the accord are bound to it in any way.
A new global warming pact, heralded by U.S. President Barack Obama as "an important milestone" and considered a done deal late Friday night, unraveled in the wee hours of Saturday morning, even though the world's biggest carbon polluters supported it.
The U.S. president had landed in snow-covered Copenhagen around 9 a.m. Friday, joining the tail end of critical two-week climate talks to help break a deadlock and broker a deal.
U.S. President Barack Obama called on the world today to adopt a three-part framework of mitigation, transparency and financing to unclog global climate change talks in Copenhagen. He warned in the summit's final hours that "our ability to take collective action is in doubt and hangs in the balance."
The plan offers "a clear formula — one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities," Obama said, referring to a UN principle that developing nations frequently point to in calling for greater emissions cuts and concessions from developed nations.
"It adds up to a significant accord — one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community," Obama said. He called it America's "bottom line."
"We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation ... or we can again choose delay," he said.
Though arguably the most powerful man on the planet, U.S. President Barack Obama heads to Copenhagen later this month wearing handcuffs. The failure of Congress to pass domestic climate legislation has meant the president has had to advance slowly, lest he get ahead of lawmakers in the Capitol. After all according to the Constitution, international treaties must be ratified by 67 "yes" votes in the Senate.
Also still fresh in everybody's mind is the 95-0 vote the Senate cast in opposition to US participation in the Kyoto Protocol, though that vote happened more than a decade ago.
But a working paper just posted at the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University's law school takes a fresh look at the legal basis of the president’s independent power to enter into internationally binding commitments related to climate change, and it finds that the president has broader powers than commonly recognized. It also identifies an intriguing possibility backed by historical and legal precedent.
In announcing President Obama’s decision to stop by the climate talks in Copenhagen next month, the White House today detailed the administration’s efforts so far to curtail climate change, calling it "an impressive resume of American action and accomplishments over the last ten months.”
The administration plans to keep burnishing that image in Copenhagen with almost daily speeches by U.S. Cabinet secretaries during the 12-day conference, the White House said.
The president, meanwhile, plans — "in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies" — to offer a mid-term U.S. greenhouse gas reduction target in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
The target would be in line with legislation passed by the U.S. House, but it still falls well short of the reductions called for by the IPCC.
Those were President Barack Obama's words this morning in his first public statement as the 2009 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, an award given in part for his position on climate change.
Environmentalists and people around the world who are beginning to feel the effects of global warming will be watching for a strong follow-through on that bold declaration.
So far, they’ve heard speeches from the U.S. president filled with hope and with promises of action to stop climate change, but words alone don’t help drought-stricken families in India, where the rice crop is in trouble, or in Somalia, where even the camels are dying. Words won’t save the Maldives islanders from the rising seas.
Environmental groups are looking for the actions they expected when they celebrated Obama’s election almost a year ago, and they’re worried that his vision of change has been dulled by Washington's culture of politics as usual.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize should increase global pressure on the president to stand up to the naysayers and to prove he can get things done for the betterment of humanity. Obama must now meet that responsibility, environmental groups say, and invest his reputation in securing a worthwhile U.S. climate law and personally negotiating a global climate treaty at Copenhagen.
In his comments to the media this morning, the president said he was surprised and humbled by the Nobel Committee's call. He said he realized the award wasn't recognition of his own achievements but of American leadership, and that he didn’t feel he deserved to be in the company of men and women who had done so much to change the world for the better. However, he said,
“I also know this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build.”
"And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement, it's also been used to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action. A call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges cannot be met by any one leader or any one nation."
.jpg "Obama Budget Erases Fossil Fuel Subsidies, Ramps Up Nuclear Spending")
.png "Businesses See Positive First Steps at Copenhagen")
.png "Conference of Parties 'Takes Note Of' Copenhagen Accord")
.jpg "Obama's Copenhagen Pact Unravels")
