Entangled Alliances

The run up to Copenhagen has begun and by all accounts it was a little more fiery than expected. I’m not referring to the Climate Camp in London, whose location was kept so secret, nor am I referring to Sen. Chuck Grassley’s remarkable comments that there are an increasing number of scientists who have doubts about Climate Change…really? This sounds a little like Sen Inhofe’s infamous list, many of whom were horrified to learn they were including on his list ( yes, he basically made it up). All of these are mere broadsides in the contemporary Climate Change debate.  The fire in this debate, which we’ve only seen glimmers on touches on the elephant in the room for environmentalists and even governments, Population control. India’s Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh issued a response to efforts by the US to bring India’s population into the debate:

Read more…

Newcomers tuning in to the G8 meeting may have been surprised by recent events. On balance it looks like an event where things get done, everything about it oozes action and dynamism. Firstly, just who they are ought to be enough: USA, UK, Russia, France, Germany, Canada, Japan and errr Italy ( it is rich at least). Secondly, there are as the name would suggest, only 8 of them. 8 is quite small, not like the UN, a system perfectly matched to ensure gridlock if any real global policy ever had to take place. Just 8, market based democracies this ought to be packing with leadership and vision.

Read more…

photo credit: db™

Ronald Reagan, that master of the quotable quip, once said that the nine most terrifying words in the English Language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. But if the Gipper were alive today and in President Obama’s shoes he might well change his mind, since right now there’s only one phrase that should strike fear into the hearts of all, and this time it’s only eight words: “The bill will now move to the Senate”.

Last week America’s first real legislation aimed at tackling climate change – The American Clean Energy and Security Act, better known as the Waxman-Markey Bill – passed the House of Representatives by a razor thin margin of 219-212. It will now move on to the Senate, which is often said to be the place where good legislation is sent to die. Where the House of Representatives is full of progressive reformers, the Senate is full of cautious moderates. Where the House often sees bills passed largely to the whipping efforts of Speaker Pelosi, the Senate is full of obstinate minded grand-standers who won’t be corralled by their party leaders.

It’s no understatement to say that the final bill that lands on Obama’s desk could well determine the future success of world efforts to halt global warming. The problem is, not only is it at risk of being sautéed à la Senate, but it’s not exactly in the best of states after having been through the meat grinder of various House committees. Legislation is often said to be like a sausage – you don’t want to watch it getting made. True to form, the various special interests and lobbyists that virtually own many key committee members have managed to make a meaty mess of the bill as it made its torturous way through the House. And you know what? It wasn’t even the most ideal piece of work to begin with.

Read more…

It’s crunch time on capital hill as the Obama administration puts its political capital on the line for the House to pass the Waxman-Markey bill. For those of you who don’t know, the Waxman-Markey bill is the first Climate Change bill to be introduced in the US ( on a federal level).

So what does it promise? (See here for a more comprehensive overview)

• To reduce US emissions on 2005 levels by 17% by 2020
• To bring US emissions down by 80% by 2050
• 25% of US energy by 2025 must be renewable
• A Cap and Trade system, 85% of permits will be auctioned off
• 2 Billion tons worth of carbon offsets
• A whole host of other measures from building efficiency, fuel standards and even a new technology bank!

Read more…

photo credit: Mariano Kamp

Climate Change is buzzing across the US political sphere at the moment,  so are torture issues, the Afghanistan war is never too far from the media’s mind, the next Supreme Court nomination is doing the rounds and North Korea just exploded a nuclear bomb. But wait! Climate Change IS buzzing, not even a debate about its existence, at least not in the mainstream, nor its role as global conspiracy but actual Climate Change or related policy has landed.

For those of us who follow the environmental issue, the US has been a sore spot to say the least, and while Obama promised much and seemed to understand it, (by which I mean he did not flat out deny mountains of scientific evidence),  but with the global recession, “sceptical” Republicans in congress etc,  many of us had doubts that Obama would expend serious capital pushing it through. In some ways we were right, he hasn’t expended his capital per se, rather he has revealed his strategic cunning to begin pushing through legislation and shape the debate early on.

Read more…

Some countries are more responsible for global warming than others. This is a very obvious but very important statement, because it transforms the issue of tackling global warming from one of self-preservation to one of ethics.

photo credit: db™

Imagine for a moment if every country in the world was more or less equally to blame for the heating of our planet- if every nation released similar amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  In this scenario, countries might choose to more or less ignore global warming, preferring, for whatever reason (e.g. upfront cost) not to make the effort to combat it and choosing instead to risk the consequences of inaction. It would be a pretty stupid decision, but it wouldn’t be an unethical one. Given that every nation was equally to blame, there would be no innocent populations that would suffer as a result. It would just be a case of reaping what you sow, not a question of morality.

In reality, of course, some countries shoulder a fair bit more of the blame for global warming than others. And, as the maps below show, that sentence could well be the biggest understatement of the year.

Read more…

You’re a model of social democracy, fairness, an economic miracle that proves free markets and globalisation don’t have to be another excuse for unbridled growth of economic inequality.  Thirty per cent of your energy is from windpower and you’re due to host COP-15,  possibly the most critical Climate Change summit, (after all Bush is out now, so anything post-Bush would be pivotal) but you have an embarrassing problem.

photo credit: John Carleton

That’s right, Danes emit 5 tonnes of CO2 per person.  That’s not that terrible, but for a model country in the fight against Climate Change, it’s at least tantamount to having smelly armpits.  So what are the Danes doing?

Well that they are doing something is a start, but Denmark always seems to be able to do the right thing with ease, so they’ve decided to reform their transport structure to more Climate friendly cars, but I don’t mean a weak transition that will take 10 years to show any impact:

Currently there are only about 200 climate-friendly autos on the nation’s streets, but that should grow to 100,000 within two years.

That is incredible and not an insignificant number in a country the size of Denmark.

This remarkable article  from Talking Points Memo and its follow up from underlines the embarassing position the GOP still finds itself in.

photo credit: khalid almasoud

Brian Merchant summarises at Treehugger:

Case in point: the GOP is publicly claiming that climate change legislation would cost each American family more than $3,100 a year, citing research done by MIT. Thing is, the very researcher who conducted the study personally contacted the GOP, alerting them to the fact that his findings clearly state that the cost to families would only be $340 a year. So what did the GOP do?

Ignored him.

After 8 years of Bush’s meddling with science by falsifying or watering down documents to suit his ideology and denying  Climate Change because of the implications for big-oil sponsors. Some of us thought the GOP might be chastened into acknowledging such over-arching global phenomena like Climate change and work to finding free-market solutions but apparently not.

What concerns me most is that the GOP will be able to get away with this, there is still a real issue particularly in the US that still doesn’t believe Climate Change is linked to man-kind, and the GOP remarkable stance, seen recently by Michael Steele is not only embarassing but breathtakingly irresponsible.

How long before they face up to reality? Because they can slow the debate down with their misinformation but they will ultimately lose it and then miss out on the opportunity to shape the legislation itself, but then again winning doesn’t seem to be high on the the Republican radar.*

* In no way am I trying to jinx NY-20, where they may actually win, but fingers crossed they don’t.

UPDATE

Think Progress covers some dissent over the issue within Republican ranks, from Republicans for Environmental Protection.

photo credit: Matthew Fang

The first Climate change legislation this year,is  from Connecticut Representative John B Larson.That the US will pass Climate Change legislation is guaranteed, there are easily enough votes for it, and the US should pass it this year. Really? I hear you ask incredulously, the stimulus didn’t work out so well and that had a strong public backing, what makes you so sure?

Firstly the House,  a strong Democratic majority wielded by Nancy Pelosi ensures a largely easy ride for the Obama administration. This was further underpinned by the success of Waxman over Dingell for the Chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce committee, marking the changing winds in Washington with regards to Climate Change. Waxman has been vocal in his support for more aggressive approaches to tackling Climate Change issues and will be be a key ally for the administration when it hopes to tackle Climate Change this year.

Second and more critically is the potential in the Senate.  Last year a Climate Change bill gained only 48 votes, with 6 supporters absent, this year we ought to be more confident. Last year, was slightly moot, since Bush would probably have vetoed it anyway. However, President Obama has spoke consistently throughout his campaign of the need for Climate Change legislation, yet it was his opponent Senator McCain who could have the final say. As a Presidential candidate, Senator McCain was candid in his support for cap and trade,  and it could be his support that brings in the votes. His prominence in the media will break the potential unaninmatyamong Senate Republican ranks in opposing legislation and would then need only one other Republican or a seated Franken to avoid a filibuster and pass legislation.

Read more…

In a follow up to my top heavy article, I wanted to bring attention to the fantastic news covered in Huff Post, that 350 European cities have signed up to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020. Dafydd Ellis at Climactico has some excellent analysis.

photo credit: doug.siefken

Another issue puts this into a wider context. Back in 2005 141 US Mayors  signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.  By 2007, 500 US Mayors had signed. The pact agreed to aim to meet Kyoto limits and was a slap in the face to the Bush administration, who throughout its 8 years opposed or held up any serious Climate Change agreement.

What marks both out is their decision to create policy outside of national Government and beyond their national borders  indicating a remarkable shift in traditional political power structures. While the US has always had stronger support for the Mayoral system than the UK, the gap may be coming to an end as a new era of urban self-determination could become increasingly prominent in 21st century politics.

Read more…