The week began and ended with major international climate change conferences. The first was a United Nations meeting, prepping world leaders for the December talks in Bali that will be the first step to determining emissions goals after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The meeting that closed out this week was held by President Bush in Washington. Sixteen nations, the UN, and the European Union were invited.

At the start of the two-day “Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change,” U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told delegates that the U.S. while being a major emitter of global warming pollution, the government is very serious about fighting climate change. In a soundbite gobbled up by the media, she said that global warming, like terrorism, needs the nations of the world to work together to fight it.

Like the meeting earlier in the week, the Washington meeting was billed as a starting point for negotiations beyond Kyoto. But while the U.N. meetings discuss measurable emissions cuts and targets, Bush prefers voluntary measures or “intensity targets,” that call for emission reductions per each unit of economic production.

The problem is that intensity targets don’t mean overall emission cuts, and that makes many at home and abroad suspicious of the real motives behind the Bush meeting.

Besides the expected protestors outside the conference, the delegates inside were wary as well. The EU’s Deputy Environment Minister Humberto Rosa explained:

“We have actually found many, many countries voicing our view that (a) voluntary approach may be useful but will not solve the issue. Voluntary goals so far have not got us to the level of ambition that we need.”

In fact, he went on to say that Europe will insist on a clearer picture of Bush’s emissions plan and how it will interlock with the Bali talks before they agree to any further meetings. Although the U.S.’s participation is welcome, they insist, officials want to ensure that the intentions of the Bali conference aren’t stalled.

Agence France-Presse
CNN
National Post

Clean energy was the hot topic at the National Press Club this week, where public leaders gathered to discuss "Securing a Clean Energy Future." Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman was there, as was Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) and Minnesota Governor and president of the National Governors Association (NGA), Tim Pawlenty (R).

Pawlenty explained that cutting global warming emissions was a top priority for the group of governors, with the hope that it would spur federal action. From the Associated Press: "We have a federal government that doesn’t seem to want to move as fast or as bold as many would like" on these issues, Pawlenty said… If enough states act to curtail greenhouse gases, "it becomes a de facto national policy.”

So far, 12 states have plans to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a major contributor to global warming.

The NGA announced an 8-governor task force to advance clean energy development in the states, and the Energy Department promised $610,000 to support its work.

But we may want to dig a little deeper into Pawlenthy’s enthusiasm. He supports the construction of the dirty Big Stone II coal plant, proposed for two miles over the Minnesota border in South Dakota. Minnesota is slated to receive a large portion of its electricity, and also has a say in the construction of the plant.

Pawlenty said that he disagrees with the statement "the future involved no coal"; he wants "clean" coal technology and carbon sequestration. Okay, but the controversial Big Stone II plant has neither of those, and some worry that its construction will make it harder for Minnesota to reach its renewable energy standard of 25 percent renewables by 2020. Pawlenty conceded that there would be an "awkward five-year transition in between and in the meantime the world goes on." Except that the coal plants hang around for 50 years.

Associated Press
Union of Concerned Scientists

It’s been a busy week for international climate change negotiations. A meeting of the United Nations and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) have some watchers feeling cautiously optimistic of future global agreements, while others are less than impressed with the semantics.

The Vienna Climate Change talks saw more than a thousand people from government, industry, and research gather in the Austrian capital to discuss ways to fight global warming. This United Nations-backed meeting is preparation for the more high-level talks in New York in September, and Bali in December. The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2012, and nations are scrambling to determine effective next steps that will address climate change mitigation, adaptation, and a global carbon market. Many hope for and expect more participation from nations glaringly absent from the first phase of implementation, like the United States and China.

Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said he expects the Vienna meetings to give a good indication as to whether governments are ready to take serious action on cutting emissions.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged governments to figure out the next phase of Kyoto three years before the first phase expires so there is time to ratify the law and be ready to go in 2012.

Austrian Environment Minister Josef Proell said in his opening remarks:

"Climate change is a huge challenge that can only be tackled at a global level and in an integrated manner… We do not have much time to create adequate framework conditions. Each year without mitigation measures is a year which drives the human and financial cost of adaptation steeply upwards."

On the other side of the world in Singapore, APEC has drafted a declaration agreeing to cut "energy intensity" by 25 percent by 2030 and plant nearly 50,000 million acres of trees. Energy intensity measures an economy’s energy efficiency – but clean energy supporters say this particular wording avoids any sort of serious commitment to cutting emissions. A spokeswoman for Greenpeace told Bloomberg news: "The APEC declaration is clearly ‘Made in the U.S.’ and covered with a thick coating of Australian coal dust."

Next month at a meeting in Sydney, Australia, APEC nations will agree to fund clean technologies and fight illegal logging. China has said it will support the Sydney declaration on climate change, and the U.S. is expected to attend the meetings.

Bloomberg
Independent Online

German Chancellor Angela Merkel visits China again this week, marking her second official visit to the nation. While she traveled with a delegation of business interests eager to make headway into the burgeoning Asian economy, Merkel’s trip also included some serious talk about climate change solutions.

On Monday, she urged Chinese leaders to do more to cut heat-trapping emissions. That led to the Chinese rebuttal that the West has been polluting the planet much longer than the Chinese have been. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said that although his people want “blue skies, green hills, and clear water,” it’s much harder for China to cut emissions that it is for other, more developed nations like Germany. A rapidly growing economy and a much larger population have put it on the fast-track towards development, but China is wary of climate change policies that would slow its development.

Nonetheless, Wen did promise Merkel that China would work hard to slow global warming in its next five-year plan on the environment that begins in 2011 – that’s in addition to the 20 percent increase in energy efficiency, and a 10 percent cut in emissions planned by 2010.

Merkel noted that industrialized nations should make clean technology available to developing countries, and that China should also develop its own technology or adopt it from abroad. China’s expected annual economic growth of 10 percent is not sustainable with improvements in efficiencies, she noted.

Back in June, G8 leaders agreed to pursue unspecified cuts in global warming emissions and to work with the UN on a post-Kyoto Protocol plan (under Kyoto, China has no emissions gargets because it’s a developing nation). In December, world environment ministers will meet in Bali to begin planning a course of action after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

Reuters
DPA News, via EarthTimes

A U.S. District Court Judge has ruled that the Bush Administration broke federal law when it failed to produce two required global warming reports on time.

The ruling was based on a 1990 law - the Research Plan and National Assessment required by the Global Change Research Act - directing the President to regularly issue two global warming plans: one that guides research and another explaining global warming’s possible impacts on the U.S.

The research plan was last issued in 2003, and is supposed to be updated every three years. The judge set a March 1 deadline for it. The report on global warming’s impacts is supposed to be issues every four years; the last one was updated by the Clinton Administration in 2000. A May 31 deadline has been set for the newest version, which will explain global warming’s projected impacts on the U.S. economy, public health, and the environment.

The Bush Administration tried to argue that it could decide for itself when and how the reports are released. They claimed they were already following the law by working on 21 different global warming reports, and were just starting to prepare a new research plan on the subject. But the judge wrote in the ruling: "The defendants are wrong. Congress has conferred no discretion upon the defendants as to when they will issue revised Research Plans and National Assessments."

The plaintiffs in the case were the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, and Friends of the Earth. The Bush Administration is reviewing the lawsuit and so far hasn’t commented on the ruling.

Center for Biological Diversity
International Herald Tribune
Wired Science

Two proposed coal-fired power plants in Iowa could negate the state’s efforts to cut emissions with clean, renewable power.

LS Power Group wants to build a 750-megawatt (MW) plant near Waterloo, and Alliant Energy wants a 630 MW coal plant near Marshalltown. A new MidAmerican Energy coal plant just began operation near Council Bluffs on June 1.

Local and regional supporters of clean and efficient energy will fight the plants. Besides the economic drain of having to import coal from Wyoming, supporters argue that powering the Iowa’s ethanol plants with coal power does not make environmental sense or economic sense. Cleaner methods of production – like using a biomass gasification system to produce ethanol – is a smarter choice, noted Carrie LaSeur of the Iowa law firm Plains Justice: “Biofuels are supposed to make us less dependent on fossil fuels and reduce CO2. Using coal to power a biofuels plant has the opposite effect…Coal is a thing of the past. Why keep falling back on this old technology, when clean alternatives are out there?”

The Iowa Utilities Board still has to approve construction of both plants, but this situation is duplicated across the U.S., where 150 new coal plants are proposed. Worries about imminent carbon regulation seem to have mixed results: while plans for about two dozen coal plants have been scrapped since 2006, other companies are rushing to build before new regulations take effect, with the assumption that their plants would be grandfathered in under any new emissions requirements.

While more than half of U.S. states have renewable energy standards that require a certain percentage of power to come from renewables, the construction of a coal plant or two can quickly unravel all the good intentions. The left hand has to pay attention to what the right hand is doing here, and we can’t have it both ways if we’re serious about creating a rich, clean energy economy while slowing global warming.

Associated Press, via Quad Cities Online
Iowa Environmental Council

This week a senior U.S. environment official met with Chinese representatives in Beijing to discuss cooperation between the two nations in the fight against global warming.

China and the U.S. are the two largest emitters of global warming pollution, with China recently surpassing the U.S. as the world leader in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – a major contributor to global warming.

James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, praised China’s “very aggressive measures in recognition of challenges of reducing air pollution.”

Last December, the Asian nation announced it would emit at a slower rate than previously planned, cutting pollution per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 20 percent by 2010. As their impressive economy continues to grow, so too will their pollution.

Connaughton also discussed President George W. Bush’s proposals to cut climate change emissions with the Chinese, noting "It is an exciting time in the relations between China and the United States in the areas of environmental quality and economic prosperity."

While the U.S. is facing pressure from the rest of the world to make real, measurable cuts in emissions, it’s admittedly smart politics to align itself with a rapidly growing nation that is also slow to commit to real emissions reductions. A strong political and economic partnership means more muscle to negotiate at the global climate change meetings President Bush has planned for the end of September, as well as the continued negotiations beyond the expiration the Kyoto Protocol’s first phase in 2012.

While China has shown progress in emissions reductions - stronger vehicle fuel efficiency standards than the U.S., for example - I’m still cautious about a U.S.-China partnership to tackle climate change, especially while the Bush administration running the show. A partnership that involves real cuts in emissions, strengthens a global clean energy economy, and facilitates the exchange of cutting-edge technology is the only way these two nations can show real leadership in a cleantech era.

China View
World Watch

The big news this week was that the U.S. House passed an energy bill that for the first time included a federal renewable energy standard (RES). This RES – an amendment to the energy bill sponsored by Representatives Tom Udall (D-NM) and Todd Platts (R-PA) – requires utilities to get 15 percent of their power from renewables by the year 2020. Other components of the House energy bill include:

• Moving $16 billion in tax incentives away from oil companies and putting it towards renewable energy.
• New energy efficiency standards for appliances and building codes.
• The creation of a Solar Energy Industries Research and Promotion Board to raise national awareness of solar energy options. The program would be funded completely by a portion of solar industry revenues, with no appropriations authorized.
• A modified 4-year extension of the wind power Production Tax Credit (PTC) that limits the credit to 35 percent of wind project costs.

Not in the bill is an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards (a.k.a. “fuel efficiency”) that was a hot topic as the session came to a close. By avoiding a vote on CAFE standards, Democrats avoid public in-fighting with fellow Dems from auto industry states, notably Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI).

The Senate already approved an increase in fuel efficiency back in June, which will be just another piece of the Senate bill to be reconciled with the House version in conference committee this fall. In addition, the White House has threatened to veto any legislation containing a renewable energy standard.

Renewable Energy Access
The Sietch Blog
Yahoo News

Finance ministers from the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) met last week in Australia to discuss how to meet the region’s energy needs and combat global warming. Key to this effort, they concluded, is to establish a framework to take the place of the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.

Market-based strategies, like a cap-and-trade policy used in Europe, were discussed. A cap-and-trade policy sets an overall limit on emissions, and then grants entities (factories, for example) permits that allow them to emit a particular amount of pollution. If they emit less than what is allowed, they can sell the surplus permits to a business that can not or will not meet their emissions requirements. This puts a price on emissions and creates an incentive to lower them. The value of global emissions-permit trading was over $30 billion in 2006, with 81 percent of that in the European Union.

APEC economies represent half of the world’s trade and include the world’s largest emitters, the U.S. and China. Neither country is bound by the Kyoto Protocol: China because it is a developing nation, and the U.S. because it didn’t ratify it. Another APEC member and large emitter, Australia, also didn’t ratify Kyoto but seems to making some progress with the announcement last week that it will start a national CO2 emissions trading system by 2012 and set a global warming emissions reduction target by next year.

China plans to cut energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years. However, Finance Minister Jin Renqing told APEC members that developed countries have the responsibility to help developing ones with the technology to achieve this. China is the world’s largest user and producer of coal, and just passed the U.S. as the world’s largest emitter of CO2.

Australian Treasurer Peter Costello was encouraged by China’s talk of using market mechanisms to cut pollution. He foresees his country playing a larger role as energy demand increases in the region but traditional supplies dwindle or are unusable because of their global warming impact. He assured China that its development will not be interrupted by energy scarcity and that Australia has “a lot to offer” it in terms of energy security.

Bloomberg News

Besides the Udall-Platts amendment to the House energy bill that calls for a federal renewable energy standard (requiring 20 percent of our energy to come from renewables by 2020), another progressive energy bill may up for a vote this week.

It’s far reaching – both in terms of what it would do for the country, and that actually passing it may be a bit of a reach.

Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) has authored a bill that increases the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards (a.k.a. “fuel efficiency”) to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2018. Currently the requirement is 27.5 mpg – and that number has hardly changed in more than 10 years.

Unlike the current requirement, however, Markey’s proposed standard does not have a lower mpg rate for most pickups and SUVs. The Senate’s 35 mpg version that passed earlier this summer also didn’t distinguish between cars and pickups/SUVs. The Senate bill was strongly opposed by the auto industry and lawmakers from states with auto factories.

On the other hand, Reps. Baron Hill (D-IN) and Lee Terry (R-NE) have a bill requiring cars to have a 35 mpg standard and trucks to reach 32 mpg by 2022. This version is supported by automakers.

CNN reports that speculation is swirling over what will happen in the House. If neither of these fuel efficiency proposals makes it to the House floor, then the House will work off the Senate’s version – which is stronger than the Hill-Terry proposal. So in the end, the House may not vote on fuel efficiency standards at all, thus avoiding the gamble that the Hill-Terry bill passes and guaranteeing that the Senate version heads to conference committee.

Or, is a perfect bill the enemy of a good bill in this case? If there’s a piece of legislation, supported by automakers, that gets us to 35 mpg for cars and 32 mpg for trucks by 2022, should we pass it in 2007 in lieu of waiting for perhaps another bill and another vote in 2008? Or, are we setting the bar too low altogether?

CNN
National Public Radio