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:

Speaking at a conference in the Indian capital, organised by Delhi’s Centre for Science and Environment, Jairam Ramesh said there was a “move in western countries to bring population into climate change [negotiations]. Influential American think-tanks are asking why should we reward profligate reproductive behaviour? Why should we reward India which is adding 14 million people every year?”

For many environmentalists, population control is the issue not spoken of. Many are reluctant enough to talk about curbing our “excessive lifestyles”, reducing the number of cars, the size of our homes, waste and all the rest of it makes Environmentalists seem draconian enough and a ideology of gloom without adding the terrifying illiberal issue of population control to the mix. Yet for many, it remains the elephant in the room. Recently some scientists in environmental corners have whispered it out, what is the best thing I can do to to go green? hybrid car? recycling? Errr no, don’t procreate so much.

The maths is quite simple, if you stopped flying and etc etc you could probably reduce your average footprint from say a ball park of 25 down to 15, a big reduction to be sure but over your lifetime that would ( very simplistically) only take  800 tons difference. Here is what a child adds on average:

Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

But population control goes beyond Climate Change, in fact to some extent it dwarfs Climate Change as a problem. The world’s population is estimated to peak  around 2050, with  at over 9 billion people.  Over that period standards of living will rise for hundreds of millions of people which, without huge breakthroughs in food production and resource recycling will result in incredible strain on a planet already unable to sustain the current population. The new people rightly will expect higher standards of living than their forebears and governments will face acute problems as rising demands meets dwindling supply. Climate Change compounds the issue, reducing the earth;s resource capacity most critically in areas of food production and more gravely reducing it in the regions of the world with the fastest growing populations.

Africa and the Middle East, have among the fastest growing population and are also among the most water-poor areas in the world, with the former in historically dire straits its problems will almost certainly be gravely compounded lacking even the basic means  agricultural production.

The issue, is a uniquely human one,  all other animal species grow to the extent their environment can sustain them, reaching a natural equilibrium of sorts. Humans, differ and have expanded exponentially over their history. This century may prove more testing than others with Climate Change and economic growth heading towards a degree of inevitable conflict. You’ve already seen this problem, water resources in Sudan, oil wars in the Middle East, these problems aren’t solely due to population but population can create almost insurmountable structural pressure on politics to match demand.

But unlike other Climate Change problems which are about financing , economic growth, technology transfer and trade terms, population control hits home directly.  How many children will you or someone else be allowed? It’s a distinctly moral question, the biological essence of humanity is put into question and one of surely our most basic rights could be called into question. Deeper than that is that, it has more underlying undertones of power politics. Wealthy and ageing western populations trying to curb the fertility of China, India, Africa and the Middle East, touches on raw nerves of the balance of global power.

This isn’t the first time the issue has been raised. China, the only country to have enacted an all-encompassing population policy in its infamous “one child policy” has in the past noted that it has done more than many countries in the effort to control Climate Change through its one child policy,  which it estimates have kept several hundred million from existence and thus relieved enormous future amounts of strain from the world.

Going into Copenhagen population control is highly unlikely to feature, however its emergence into International dialogue has begun already and soon this taboo subject may well become centre stage, although I suspect a third-rail at first.

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.

Unfortunately, reality is different and while the world is cooking, the G8 kindly offered some token money to help agriculture in developing countries and to promise to keep global temperatures down to a mere 2C rise, no policy, no action or room for vision rather a an extended press conference, suitably vague to offend nobody and of course hopelessly lacking in leadership.

With Climate Change’s effects flexing their muscles, declining ice in the Arctic, water crises from Northern India, to Australia and the US west, rising sea levels and things only set to get worse, it was disheartening to say the least that the top 8 richest countries in the world apparently struggle to lay out any plan that might make them have to take Climate Change seriously. Why was this so?

Apart from the G8’s careful ability to rarely achieve much, this G8 with a focus on Climate change had several factors that damaged it from the start:

1. The US the only chance of any global leadership, has yet to pass a Climate bill at a federal level, and has recently been delayed, in reality removing much of the the US’s strength in International negotiations.
2. Russia, amusing ( black comedy style) Russia has announced that by allowing emissions to increase up to 2020 at predicted level it will still achieve its kyoto targets  due to so much soviet heavy industry closing down.
3. Japan, promised to reduce emissions by 15% on 2004 baselines, essentially then reducing 4% emissions since 1990.
4. Canada, ranked bottom of the G8 group by the WWF-Allianz group, this affluent state is unfortunately ruled by a Stephen Harper’s minority coalition government whose biggest contribution to Climate change discussions has been to a) admit Climate Change exists and b) be reassured that soundsbites are becoming more robust ( but god forbid they translate into policy).

Amusingly, that leaves the European contingent as leaders, now on the one hand, as a cautious EU supporter I’m proud we’re leading the field, on the other hand UK, Germany, France and Italy reads like who’s who of 19th/20th century has beens and are woefully incapable of providing the true leadership we need.

What are the positives then?

Firstly is that we are in a recession and that may make policy makes especially cautious to be seen to be making any moves on Climate Change that could hamper economic recovery, or even sound like it might, if the US in particular begins to pull out in the next 4 months it may even be able to sneak a bill through congress. If it does this, this could easily provide the catalyst for for key developing countries such as China and India to begin managing targets.

Secondly, Canada could get a new government, actually quite likely and while Mr Ignatieff is still a fan of Alberta’s tar sands, he is a world apart from Mr Harper when it comes to actually tackling Climate Change.

Finally, the debate will continue to roll on, Climate Change will not be going away, slowly but surely people are coming to terms with the need for policy action and I see domestic movement having a positive reciprocal relationship with International policy, if something however disappointing but vaguely substantial can be agreed at Copenhagen, this will strengthen the case for domestic politicians to go back home and bolster their own efforts which should be able to feed back into International negotiations. We won’t get this right with one swing but slowly our pleasantly inadequate politicians might manage to avoid total catastrophe.

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.

♦♦♦

The key mandate of the bill – a 17% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and  an 83% cut by 2050 – is also one of its biggest problems. These cuts are based on 2005 emission levels.  But multiple scientific bodies such as the IPCC have recommended that by 2020 there needs to be, at the very least, a 20% cut of 1990 levels. The bill , however, only has  a 4% cut. That’s a big difference. Indeed, it’s led many progressives and environmental groups to question whether the bill will do anything to halt climate change. But that’s not the only provision in the bill which seems rather weak. The first draft had weak but acceptable mandates for renewable energy and efficiency savings:  utilities had to ramp up renewable energy to 25% of their portfolio by 2025, and increase efficiency savings to 15% by 2020. But now those two standards have been combined, to a measly 20% total by 2025.

More problems lie with the bill’s headline feature: a cap and trade system designed to achieve the mandated cuts in carbon emissions. Cap and trade is by far the least understood legislative concept that’s in the public eye, but it’s really not that complicated. It’s simply a system that creates a market for carbon emissions. The “cap” involves  the government setting a carbon emission limit beyond which no polluter can pass. Anyone that exceeds this limit will have to buy a carbon permit off someone who’s not polluting as much – that’s the “trade” part. The idea is that by creating a carbon market like this it will become cheaper for a company to pollute less than it is to have to keep buying more permits. Even if this incentivising doesn’t work, you’re still ensuring less pollution, since no-one’s allowed to go beyond the cap.

So far so good. But the controversial part of this system is whether the government should auction off the carbon permits -raking in some revenue in the process – or gives them to polluters for free. The first draft of the Waxman-Markey bill allowed for 100% of the permits to be auctioned. This concerned the big utility companies, all of whom have a powerful influence on many members of the key energy committee. Therefore, by the time the bill finally escaped committee the cap and trade system was magically transformed into one where only 15% of the allowances  were auctioned, with the other 85% doled out free to various big polluters, most notably power companies. Outraged, this was the final straw for many environmental groups. Greenpeace withdrew their support entirely from the bill, with a slightly bizarre warning that it now threatens to do more harm than good.

However, it’s important to be clear on how bad this change is. It shouldn’t affect the incentive system behind cap and trade, since companies given permits for free will still want to reduce their emissions so they can sell their carbon allowances for a hefty profit – go capitalism! Moreover,the cap is still the cap – emissions will still be reduced. So, beyond sheer disgust at big polluters getting a free handout, it’s not really clear why this was the last straw for groups like Greenpeace. Nevertheless, it is unsettling, because the smaller the percentage of permits that go to auction, the less money the government takes from their sale; money which could then be reinvested into renewable energy. At the moment, however, the small amount of revenue the government would makes from auctions is aimed at refunding households that would otherwise be hit by an increase in their energy bills. In terms of potential investment in clean energy, that’s a real missed opportunity.

I could go on – and on. There’s plenty more things wrong with the bill, and astonishingly they’ve all appeared before it’s even got to the Senate.  The question now becomes what damage the venerable upper chamber will do to the legislation. The omens, it has to be said, don’t look so good. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which serves largely at the behest of the oil and coal lobbies, recently released a bill of their own which included even worse renewable energy targets than Waxman-Markey. It’s possible that the faults with the cap and trade system may be somewhat rectified, since this will be the prerogative of Barbara Boxer’s relatively progressive Environment Committee. But waiting in the wings when the bill comes out of committee onto the Senate floor, like a troupe of grandstanding pantomime villains, are several centrist, business-serving Democrats who are waiting to do to a climate change bill what was done to February’s stimulus package – i.e. lop some good bits off.  The only person who can really guarantee that the bill comes out of the Senate better, not worse, is Obama and he’s had – and will have – his hands full with the immensely complex issue of health-care reform, which is running concurrent with climate change legislation. Moreover, Obama’s so far shown absolutely no sign that he wants a good climate change bill as much as he wants a good health-care bill.

♦♦♦

Given that a climate change bill is unlikely to end up on the President desk in a state as good as it should – and needs – to be, does this mean that it’s a complete failure? This question matters right now, because the answer tell us whether progressive and environmental groups should be advocating for perfection or searching for compromise. Paul Krugman has argued in the New York Times that we shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good, and that this is a decent bill that can be built upon in the future. Is he right?

Well, first it’s important to remember that the bill – so far – isn’t completely terrible. The long term target of an 80% emissions cut by 2050 is still a respectable one. The fact that there are mandates to reduce emissions in the first place – and a cap and trade system to implement  them – is an achievement in itself given the immense power of energy lobbyists. If either the targets or method of delivery are weak, then they can be improved upon in the future. After all, it’s not like this is the only chance Obama will have to combat climate change. He’s going to need something to do once he’s reformed healthcare, got the economy back on track, made peace in the middle East and fixed the financial sector, less he run out of things that need fixing and has to spend his second term shooting hoops on the White House court. And though he probably won’t sustain the enormous levels of popularity he has at the moment, there are still going to be times when he has political capital to spend on further legislation – most notably after his inevitable re-election come 2012.

Moreover, Democrats are still on target for a net gain of 2-4 Senators in the 2010 midterms, so you would hope that any future bills that arise in the next three years will have a better chance of not being held hostage by the business lapdogs of the Senate.  I suspect many groups currently demanding perfection are at the mercy of the “Big Bang” theory of legislation that says everything must be done at once, before the window of opportunity closes. Sadly, it just doesn’t look like this will be possible with climate change.

Finally and perhaps most crucially, America needs a bill – however imperfect it is – in time for December’s climate change summit in Copenhagen, where the world’s nations will come together to agree on a strategy to fight global warming. After all, the likes of China and Russia are hardly going to make their gardens green if it’s obvious that America isn’t tending it’s own backyard. And America could shut off all its carbon emissions tomorrow, but if China doesn’t do squat then we’re in for a very bad few centuries.

♦♦♦

All the above may well be true. But it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a very scary disconnect between the apocalyptic predictions of most reputable climate scientists and the moderate-to-weak provisions in the Waxman-Markey bill.  For example, check this quote out from Obama’s own energy chief, the Nobel Laureate scientist Stephen Chu: (emphasis mine)

Right now, the climate scientists feel that if all humans shut off carbon emissions today, it will still glide up by about 1 degree centigrade. In the business-as-usual scenarios, Nicholas Stern says there’s a 50 percent chance we may go to 5 degrees centigrade. We know what the Earth was like 5 or 6 degrees centigrade colder. That was called the Ice Ages. Imagine a world 5 degrees warmer. The desert lines would be dramatically changed. The West is projected to be in drought conditions. And certain tipping points might be triggered. We can adapt to 1 or 2 degrees. More than that, there is no adaptation strategy.

Actually, if our only chance to fully adapt to global warming comes if we shut off all emissions right now, then maybe groups like Greenpeace aren’t so much being perfectionist as they are being ridiculously over-accommodating.

This doesn’t mean, however, that America’s first stab at climate change legislation shouldn’t be embraced as a step in the right direction. But it does mean you might want to start saving up for that condo on Mars.

Read More:  The Ethical argument for tackling global warming

Waxman-Markey Bill: Crunch Time

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!

Ok it’s been watered down, see Kelly McManus’ coverage at Climatico to,how its been watered down. Worse the Senate will be an even tougher battle with a smaller Democratic majority, and still no Al Franken *sigh*, but make no mistake, this bill is a game changer.

For a long time, I’ve had a list of things I would like Obama to do ( not including saving the US economy):

1. Health care
2. Climate Change bill
3. Immigration Reform
4. Gay rights

That isn’t a definitive list but if he got those down, that would do for me. Although far from perfect, this Climate Change bill is the only realistic chance of success in combatting Climate change, not simply because the US is the world’s second largest polluter but because it is the world’s superpower and the largest economy. If the US  was not willing to take serious action against Climate Change, China India and the rest will never get on board. As we head towards crucial Climate negotiations at the end of this year and the beginning of the next this is probably the only chance the US has of passing a serious Climate Change bill in time, to show it is willing to take serious leadership

And to be honest, the Democrats won’t have it this good for a long time, at best they will keep a hold in the 2010 mid terms, there is a small chance they’ll be able to expand and a good chance they will slip a little bit. They have a large majority in the house and IF Franken were ever seated would be looking at filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The time really is now.

So if it passes what then? Well if it passes, it still ahs to go and get watered down in the Senate, but if it survives that and the Republicans don’t use the fillibuster than a framework has been set for the US to reduce Climate emissions. With luck this will change the nature of debate for further incremental legislation to strengthen the legislation, critical to this will be:

• Proven success of green jobs, already a growing number of economists and think tanks ( e.g. Pew Research) have come out in support – that green can be good for the economy.
• An economic upturn in general, weakens the hand of those who oppose the bill purely on economic grounds.
• The continual reduction in climate sceptics as evidence already insurmountable continues to pile over, until Republicans realise that opposing near total majority of world scientific research is ridiculous, this could take a long time, but if enough of the American public are convinced, Republicans may eventualyl change their tune. Then the debate will be about the type of policy rather than the exisitence of Carbon Dioxide :-p

The House votes tommorow, fingers crossed.

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.

The two big Climate Change issues at the moment is the Waxman-Markey bill, proposing a US wide Cap and Trade policy, this one passed its first major hurdle which was making it out of comittee, it has an arduous journey ahead of it but don’t be fooled,  from the Bush administration’s denial of Global warming and paltry increase in renewable energy funding, a debate on a nationwide Cap and Trade is a huge leap forward.

The second, is the fuel standards or CAFE legislation. This surprised many by its boldness. Fuel standards were first introduced after the OPEC oil crisis and were successful in the short term of reducing US consumption. Since then however, the framework for fuel efficiency standards became a patchwork with a lack of movement at a federal level, eventually this resulted in the California face off with the EPA over the latter’s refusal to grant a waiver  for California for higher fuel efficiency standard than the underwhelming Bush proposals. What took commentators by surprise was that Obama passed the CAFE 4 years before it was mandated by law to be revised and with more far reaching standards than many had hoped for, essentially from 2012, fuel efficiency will be raised 5% each year. Although this would still put it behind Europe, after literally  of little to no progress this is a remarkable step forward and has the double effect of changing the Canadian car market ( the two are so closley linked that major Canadian states,  just match their fuel standards to the US).

President Obama undoubtedly realised that on any single front, intransigent Republicans and conservative Democrats could be enough to water down any particular piece of legislation. Which is why Obama has decided to pursue the policy on numerous fronts,  in the hope to reach a more ambitious target.

While the Waxman-Markey bill will continue to endure a very tough battle, setting an ambitious target to raise fuel standards Obama has effectively passed a Climate Change and energy security bill in one:

Obama mentioned that 1.8 billion barrels of oil will be saved over the lifetime of vehicles sold in the next 5 years (this is the equivalent of shutting down 194 coal plants or taking 58 million cars off the roads for a year

In addition to this, the stimulus bill contained approximately $60 billion will go towards green projects from renewable energy investment, research as well as other environmental efforts.

As with all things Obama, the it’s not just about the legislation but changing the the whole framework of the debate. Many have noted that for Climate Change policy to be sustained across the political spectrum and over time it cannot simply rely on Climate Change as a goal, rather it needs to be recast with concomitant values that can unite people across the political spectrum. Obama no stranger to the power of words has placed his bets: Jobs and energy security.

“It’s the economy stupid” may be cliché but it’s the language that wins elections, especially in an election, Obama has promised 5 million green energy jobs and frequently discusses the clean energy market as one America can’t afford not to invest in, describing it as a cornerstone of America’s economic recovery and an excellent future market for investment.

While his first language is positive, Obama takes a more serious tone when he discusses energy security. Although discussed during the campaign, the Obama administration has continued this line and begun to back it up with investment and the CAFE standards.  He’s met with considerable success with some veteran groups coming out in favour of renewable energy investment to prevent future energy wars. Democracy Corp recently found Obama had higher approval on National Security than he did on his job approval , with 50% of American’s saying Obama was doing better than Bush on national security. While this will obviously focus much more on traditional military issues, Obama has nevertheless been able to cast renewable energy and fuel standards as essential tools in strengthening America’s strategic position and subseqeuntly casting those who allowed oil dependency to continue  as damaging to America’s national security *cough* Bush-Cheney *cough*.

He’s got a long road to tread, but Obama is no stranger to playing the longer game.

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.

These maps are from a fascinating(ly scary) report by British medical journal The Lancet & University College London that assesses the future impact of global warming on the world’s health. They are density cartograms – a type of map in which a country’s size is shown in proportion to a given piece of data. As you can see, it’s an effective way of getting a point across.

Map A shows each country’s cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide between they years 1950-2000 . You’ll notice the massive bulge of mega-polluter America and how Western Europe has exploded while Africa has all but vanished.

Map B shows the regional distribution of four climate-sensitive health consequences -  malaria, malnutrition, diarrhoea and flood-related fatalities. These harbingers of death are set to increase to devastating levels as the effects of global warming set in.  You”ll notice that Africa and Southeast Asia have, essentially, become the world , while Europe, North America, Russia etc have been reduced to insignificant straits.

So the West will get away comparatively scott free from the thoroughly nasty health consequences of global warming, while the regions of the world that haven’t been busy choking the planet will suffer the worst.  And if those maps aren’t enough for you, then I give you this stark warning from the report:

Loss of healthy life years as a result of global environmental change (including climate change) is predicted to be 500 times greater in poor African populations than in European populations

Decisively tackling global warming, then, is as close as you can come to a moral imperative as far as the West is concerned.  But this hasn’t yet sunk in when it comes to the terms of domestic debate. Take, for example, the climate change bill currently working its way through the United States legislature. The Waxman-Markey bill is the America’s first real rifle-shot in the war against global warming; at its heart is a cap and trade program that promises to be extremely effective in reducing America’s carbon emissions (more of which tomorrow). But it’s currently at risk of being seriously watered down by moderate Democrats in the House and the Senate, who are concerned about the financial impact the bill will have on domestic energy companies and the energy bills of American households.

But unlike, say, the other big reforms heading America’s way in things like healthcare and labour law, the consequences of not passing an effective climate change bill go beyond the effects on American companies and American households. It’s this reality that hasn’t yet intruded into the political debate. If this changes, then maybe US lawmakers would realise that the usual, understandably selfish “country-first” attitude that  pervades most debates about domestic reform simply isn’t applicable when it comes to global warming. Breaking this nationalistic way of approaching legislation is difficult, but it needs to be done if we want radical rather than incremental solutions to global warming.

Someone needs to remind the politicians of the West that while it might seem practical to drag their feet when it comes to radical measures that tackle global warming, it’s also deeply unethical. We forget this at the third world’s peril.

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.

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.

However, before we get too enthusiastic, the economy will prove a mitigating factor,  if the economy has not bottomed out, Democrats will not risk adding a potentially economically destabilising Climate Change policy, so we may be looking at autumn 2009 for the legislation to actually pass.

That being the case, what legislation will it be. There appears to be two divergent views on Climate Change policy, cap and trade or a Carbon Tax. The latter is barely mentioned and yet will be

I  wrote previously about the role of Cap and Trade in Europe, noting cuatiously that it appeared to be working. However, there are some convincing argument that a Carbon tax is superior.

With the following points:

1. It is simpler – a tax rather than a complex trading system.

2. Avoids potential pitfalls of the Cap and Trade system, seen to some extent in Europe with carbon offset loopholes, over-issuing of permits to allow companies to cash in,  and a failure to include all industries.

3. Carbon tax, could be a more market based solution – if rather than a top-end regulation of polluting industries, it simply incentivises consumers throughstandard price mechanisms ( a company would have to raise the cost of its goods to to match the lost revenue to taxation)

4. It would not actually cost consumers more assome proponents argue companies are taxed at the source and the profits are passed on to consumers either through tax-reduction or a rebate.

But as the NYT article notes, Larson’s attempt is doomed to failure.

“Tax” is a terrible word in politics and even if this carbon tax actually resulted in no net increase in taxation on the individual,  it would sound bad in the good times and even worse in the bad times. It would also bring to some extent the cost of Climate Change to the American consumer, ( price hikes across the board), where as Cap and Trade, is more indirect.

Perhaps then the fork, is imaginary, while his timing appears terrible, Larson ought to be given some credit for raising the issue again even if he won’t get any public debate. I have yet to come down on which  policy is best but that the US needs to implement policy this year is of paramount importance, if a global agreement is to be fored.

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.

David Cameron recently wrote an article in the Guardian, asking for greater devolvement of power. This isn’t exactly a new theme, and the article is somewhat ironic given it was Thatcher more than anyone else that smashed local Government control in the UK.  Look past thishowever and you will see a key piece of Cameron’s plan is for 12 new mayoral systems to be established across the UK.  The rise of mayoral politics is undoubtedly a symbol of our growing urbanisation, with over 50% of the world’s population now living in urban areas, the traditional local government structures, of geographical region will need serious reform to cope with the growing power of cities.

There are reasons to think this is a positive development; the recent intensity around London’s election, which saw Conservative Boris Johnson oust incumbent Ken Livingstone was a testament to the shifting identities in the UK and around the world , and a subsequent need for new democratic structures to represent and engage people.

Furthermore, cities are fundamentally different from other traditional units, continuous, dense economic hubs with high stress on resources and infrastructure,  usually multicultural and often far more integrated into the global economy,change is a permanent state in the city and as such the mayoral system with greater executive power is in my opinion far more appropriate.

These two pieces of legislation, remarkable in their breadth, vision and justified belief in the importance of cities for global issues is a strongly positive symbol of the globalized society to find new routes to enact the urgent change we need to tackle Climate Change, and hopefully arrest the lethargy in national goverment in addressing urgent issues.