The Last Truffula Seed

Inclusion of Carbon Capture and Storage in the CDM

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:31:00 +0000

Perhaps the most controversial of the agreements achieved at COP16 was the decision to make carbon capture and storage (CCS) eligible as a project activity under the CDM, provided certain issues are satisfactorily addressed.

There is, however, a long road to travel before the carbon reductions achieved by CCS projects are monetized via certified emission reduction (CER) credits. The COP's decision makes this a possibility, but it's by no means a fait accompli that the journey will be finished anytime soon. Moreover, even if CCS projects result in CERs, it seems clear that given current market prices for carbon, the financial inducement of CERs--taken alone--is hardly strong enough make CCS projects financially viable in developing countries. And of course CDM is all about developing countries.

The COP decision--which is available here--is carefully worded such that it opens the door for the inclusion of CCS under CDM, while simultaneously pointing out the array of concerns that need to be satisfactorily addressed prior that becoming a reality.

In the Preamble, the decision notes that the Parties have "highlighted issues which need to be addressed and resolved in the design and implementation of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations, in order for these activities to be considered within the scope of the clean development mechanism . . . ."

The crux of the decision is that CCS is eligible, if and only if certain conditions are met—namely “the issues identified in decision 2/CMP.5, paragraph 29,” which must be “addressed and resolved in a satisfactory manner . . . .”

2/CMP.5 is available here. Agreed on at last year’s COP15, paragraph 29 delineates a number of “outstanding issues” pertaining to CCS, namely:

(a) Non-permanence, including long-term permanence;
(b) Measuring, reporting and verification;
(c) Environmental impacts;
(d) Project activity boundaries;
(e) International law;
(f) Liability;
(g) The potential for perverse outcomes;
(h) Safety; and
(i) Insurance coverage and compensation for damages caused due to seepage or leakage.

Under the COP16 decision, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) is tasked with elaborating “modalities and procedures for the inclusion of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations as project activities under the clean development mechanism . . . ."

Modalities and procedures are the rules that govern the CDM that were adopted at COP 7 in Marrakesh in 2001 and later adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP) at COP/MOP in Montreal in 2005 in the Annex to Decision 3/CMP.1.

In addition to the concerns cited in 2/CMP.5, paragraph 3 of the COP16 decision requires that the SBSTA’s modalities and procedures address a number of related and distinct issues, such as site selection criteria; monitoring procedures for leakage; the use of modeling; delineation of project boundaries (which is required to include the project components related to “capture, treatment, transportation, injection” as well as the subsurface); reservoir pressure and pre-injection monitoring plans; the implications of transboundary CCS projects; leakage; risk and safety assessment methodologies; socio-environmental impact assessments; pre-approval determinations of short-, medium-, and long-term liability and the risk of inducing seismic events; the means for using such liability determinations to redress affected entities from leakage; liability allocation; transfer of liability; state liability; ecosystem remediation funding and mechanisms; and compensation for affected communities.

This is not a short or simple list to tackle.

Here’s the formal procedure going forward:

The decision invites observer organizations to submit to the secretariat their views on addressing the issues referenced in paragraph 3 by February 21, 2011. The secretariat is then charged with preparing a synthesis report based on these submissions.

The secretariat is then tasked with convening, prior to the 35th session of the SBSTA, a technical workshop of legal and technical experts to consider the synthesis report and discuss how best to resolve the issues noted in paragraph 3 through “modalities and procedures.”

Based on the synthesis report and the deliberations of the technical workshop, the secretariat is then charged with preparing draft “modalities and procedures” for consideration by the SBSTA at its 35th session.

Following this, the SBSTA is supposed to make a recommendation to the COP at its next session in Durban, South Africa.

And then it’s up to the COP to decide if these issues were resolved in a “satisfactory manner.”

So to sum up, there’s a long way still to go before CCS truly becomes a viable project category under CDM. And even if it does . . .

From Copenhagen to Cancún (From Nopenhagen to No-Can-Do)

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 01:25:00 +0000

I'm in Cancún for week two of COP16. A year ago I was freezing my backside off in a line in Copenhagen waiting to get credentials, winding my way through a Kafkaesque study in bureaucratic incompetency. Things couldn't be more different this year. After waking up to an amazing view of white sands flanked by the turquoise ocean, I breezed through the credentials line yesterday (took me all of 5 minutes). Expectations are low for this COP (this is not Hopenhagen). No surprise there. It's both purposeful, as a way to ensure the conference doesn't repeat the debacle of Copenhagen by raising expectations too high, and literal, in that nobody really expects much to happen (i.e., no binding agreement, just incremental progress on things like fast-start-financing, REDD, tech transfer, etc.). There are some subtle developments on CCS--which happened last week. I'll be talking about this in subsequent posts, as well as blogging on other COP related developments.

Interview with NIST's George Arnold and Kevin Doran

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:35:00 +0000

A recent interview that I did with George Arnold, the US National Coordinator for Smart Grid Interoperability (NIST), Ajit Jaokar, founder of Futuretext. Interview conducted by Prof. Mattias Ganslandt from the University of Lund.

This is part 1 of 6. Click on the video to see the rest of the interview.

CEES Research in the New York Times (etc.)

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:44:00 +0000

CEES assisted the Presidential Climate Action Project in preparing a series of climate change-related executive orders; in NYT . . . CEES is mentioned toward the middle of the story:

Obama gets a menu of climate actions he can take without Congress

President Obama could invoke strong climate policies without congressional input before world leaders convene this fall to negotiate an international global warming treaty, a research group says in a plan provided to the administration. The report lists a host of quick-start recommendations that can be implemented with executive orders, bypassing the cumbersome legislative process that sank Senate efforts this summer, according to members of the privately funded Presidential Climate Action Project.

Dead, Not Dead, Dead, Not Dead, Dead ...

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:38:00 +0000

From E&E (subscription req'd):

CLIMATE: White House still hopes to pass bill this year -- Browner

The White House is "deeply disappointed" that Congress hasn't passed climate legislation but won't give up on getting it done this year, President Obama's top climate and energy adviser said yesterday. Carol Browner said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the administration is still holding out hope for a legislative victory on climate and energy, despite the political challenges of passing a controversial bill through the Senate after the chamber returns from its August recess.

Debbie Downer Doran?

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:13:00 +0000

I've received some interesting flack for my recent quote in this Wall Street Journal article. The descriptive / arguably normative jist of the article is aptly summarized by its title: Even Boulder Finds It Isn't Easy Going Green. My basic perspective on sub-federal efforts such as these is that they're worthy, laudable efforts that should be duplicated. But as my quote endeavored to emphasize, getting consumers to respond meaningfuly to demand-side management and energy efficiency initiatives is tough going. A strong price on carbon would go a long way toward improving this.

One rather odd thing in the story is Roger Pielke's absurd comment that charging our personal gadgets wipes out the conservation value of motion-detector lights. Additionality, anyone? The problem with the comment is that the students didn't go out and buy gadgets just because the University had installed new lights! Also, the gadgets would have been charged anyway, even without the purchase of the new lights. So in no way does charging them negate the conservation value of the lights.

SEC Issues Interpretive Guidance on Climate Risk Disclosure

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:12:00 +0000

Here's a press release issued today by CEES:

CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER
________________________________________

SEC ISSUES GUIDANCE ON CLIMATE RISK DISCLOSURE

Yesterday (Jan. 27, 2010) the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said for the first time that public companies must disclose climate-related risks to their investors. The SEC press release is available here.

The "interpretive guidance" requires that public companies disclose such climate-related risks as the impact of legislation and regulation; the impact of international accords; the indirect consequences of regulation or business trends; and the physical impacts of climate change.

Upon issuing the guidance, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro stated, "We are not opining on whether the world's climate is changing, at what pace it might be changing, or due to what causes. Nothing that the Commission does today should be construed as weighing in on those topics. Today's guidance will help to ensure that our disclosure rules are consistently applied."

In 2009 CEES co-released a report with Environmental Defense Fund and Ceres entitled "Reclaiming Transparency in a Changing Climate: Trends in Climate Risk Disclosure by the S&P 500 from 1995 to the Present." Authored by CEES Senior Fellow Kevin Doran, CEES Policy Analyst Elias Quinn, and Environmental Defense economist Martha Roberts, the report provided the first comprehensive sectoral analysis of the quantity and quality of climate risk disclosure by the S&P 500.

"The SEC's guidance is an extraordinary breakthrough," said CEES Senior Fellow Kevin Doran. "The guidance recognizes that climate change can present material opportunities and challenges for business, and that companies are obligated to communicate this information to investors. The report that CEES, EDF and Ceres released, along with many other efforts, was instrumental to achieving this recognition."

A copy of the report is available here.

Commenting on the report, Harvey L. Pitt, former chairman of the SEC and E. Donald Elliott, former assistant administrator and general counsel for the EPA, stated: "The Center for Energy and Environmental Security and the Environmental Defense Fund have performed a valuable public service by co‐sponsoring this important Report that assesses trends in disclosures to investors by publicly‐traded companies about the potential effects of climate change and related public‐policies on their businesses. We congratulate the authors and the sponsoring organizations, and we commend their work to those who are interested in protecting the environment, or improving SEC‐disclosure obligationsbut most especially to those, like us, who care about both."

Senior United Nations Fellow Robert Repetto also remarked, "Investors need accountable, consistent information regarding which companies are ready to seize new market opportunities spurred by climate policy, and which are falling behind. This report underscores the immediate need for the new SEC administration to restore transparency regarding corporate management of climate risks and opportunities by issuing guidance that clarifies appropriate climate disclosure practice."

Climate Conference in Cancun!

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:35:00 +0000

Looks like the next Conference of the Parties (COP-16) will be held in Cancun as opposed to Mexico City! This should be better than freezing in Copenhagen. Check out the press release (in Spanish) here.

The Death of Cap and Trade?

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:27:00 +0000

Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican Senator from South Carolina, is quoted in a New York Times article as saying: "Realistically, the cap-and-trade bills in the House and the Senate are going nowhere They’re not business-friendly enough, and they don’t lead to meaningful energy independence."

As those of us following the issue know, this is huge as Senator Graham was the only Senator willing to side with Democrats on developing a comprehensive climate bill that includes, as its regulatory centerpiece, a cap-and-trade system for reducing GHG emissions.

With the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts last week, Democrats no longer have a filibuster proof majority, and appear also to have lost the stomach for a fight on cap-and-trade--at least for this year.

This poses trouble achieving meaningful progress at the next COP in Mexico City: as in, there goes the chances of completing a binding agreement under the UNFCCC. Not going to happen now. And with no cap-and-trade, the $100 billion a year by 2020 that Secretary Clinton promised the U.S. would help mobilize loses a main source of revenue.

This pushes the ball into EPA's court. And that's of course where things will end up. Court.

Thank God for the Supremacy Clause

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:01:00 +0000

Poor Kentucky.

Representative Jim Gooch (D-Providence) is the chairman of the committee that deals with environmental issues in the Kentucky House of Representatives. As reported in the Louisville Courier-Journal, Rep. Gooch has introduced a resolution that would ban local government agencies from limiting carbon dioxide.

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:03:00 +0000

A great Christmas cartoon from Skeptical Science . . .

New Website for the Carbon Management Center

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:07:00 +0000

I've designed and launched a new website for the Carbon Management Center (CMC), a research collaboration between the Colorado School of Mines, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado State University, and the University of Colorado at Boulder. Along with lead-director Dag Nummedal (CSM), Keith Paustian (CSU), and Kim Magrini (NREL), I am one of the four "co-directors" of this new Collaboratory center.

The website is at http://www.carbonmanagementcenter.org/. Among other things, check out the CCS Projects page, which has an embedded Google Earth plugin that shows CCS projects throughout the world. I'm currently the PI on a NETL funded project on the law and policy aspects of CCS. More on that, I'm sure, in the future.

Frost Paw the Polar Bear!

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:50:00 +0000

During the COP I stayed with a friend of mine, Brendan Cummings, from the Center for Biological Diversity. In addition to being a brilliant lawyer, Brendan is also Frost Paw the Polar Bear. I've never seen anyone get so many requests for interviews and photographs. Below is a picture of Julie Teel, Brendan, and me. Below that is a quick photoshop hack job in which Brendan's face has been wiped out, just to make Frost Paw look a bit more realistic (just for fun). The outfit was created by an artist in California for CBD. Brendan was wearing the mask up becase Danish police were arresting people wearing masks, and he had already been detained once for having it down. He later got official permission to wear the outfit in the Bella Center, with the mask down.

Thoughts on the Climate Accord

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:07:00 +0000

Negotiators to COP-15 decided to "take note" of the Climate Accord brokered by President Obama. But what exactly does "take note" in this sense mean?

As reported in the Washington Post, Yvo de Boer, the UNFCCC Executive Secretary and the United Nations top climate official, says that to "take note" of the accord "is a way of recognizing that something is there, but not going so far as to associate yourself with it." This is fairly common preambular language in international treaties; it is, however, unusual for something that is (ostensibly) the culmination of two years of multilateral negotiations to be held at arm's-length in this fashion.

Some other salient things to consider about the accord:

1. The agreement is non-binding. It does not bind developed or developing countries to emission reduction targets; nor does it bind them to the pledge of engaging in financial assistance transfers.

2. The agreement was not universally agreed upon by the 193 countries attending the summit. Efforts to adopt the accord as an official U.N. document failed due to lack of consensus.

3. The agreement to "take note" of the accord is accompanied by five outstanding objections from Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Sudan.

4. According to the agreement, participating countries must list their current domestic pledges for reducing emissions, and pledge to permit monitoring of their respective progress in meeting these commitments. The accord calls for developing countries to put their commitments into a registry and to create a system for verifying that their commitments are being met. Danish Prime Minister Rasumessen has agreed to send out letters to countries inviting them to participate in the accord. Countries are expected to submit their pledges over the coming weeks.

5. The accord does not contain a timeline for endeavoring to reach a legally binding agreement. An earlier draft of the accord had contained such language, calling for such an effort in 2010. The accord only calls for a scientific review in 2015, the same year the IPCC is slated to come out with a comprehensive review of climate science.

6. The accord promises actions that will prevent the Earth's temperature from increasing by more than 2 degrees Celsius. The actions that will actually achieve this feat remain undefined. Many developing countries objected to this target, not only due to the lack of specifics, but also due to the target itself which they viewed as inadequate. Prevention of a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees was the preferred target for developing countries.

7. The accord promises financing to help developing countries adapt to climate change, but is rather vague on this score too. While it contains a commitment of providing $10 billion in annual short-term financing from developed countries over the next three years, it sets only an aspirational goal to raise $100 billion in annual funding by 2020. Where this money will come from is unspecified. Some admixture of private and public funding to be sure, but the relative proportions remain a crucial issue.

"Take Note" of the Accord

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:58:00 +0000

The gavel has come down. The meeting is over. The acting-chair of the COP declared the parties would "take note" of the contentious Climate Accord. He also stated that those countries willing to participate in the Accord by offering commitments in Appendix I and II would be listed within the document. This is a far cry from a consensus, party-driven process. It seems, however, that the political agreement is now capable of being implemented through the UN machinery. Video of the anticlimatic event is below.

COP Deciding Fate of Obama's "Climate Accord"

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:48:00 +0000

Below are video files of the press conference President Obama gave after concluding a last-minute deal with China, India, Brazil and South Africa. The "Climate Accord," as it's been dubbed, is a non-binding political agreement that provides for voluntary GHG reductions by developed and developing countries (for the latter category, even voluntary commitments is a first), as well as financing for adaptation and a mechanism for tracking compliance with commitments. The agreement is relatively feckless in terms of reduction commitments, but it's likely to be the only significant (i.e., politically significant) outcome of the COP. It's uncertain, though, whether the COP will ratify the deal--or whether it even needs to ratify the deal, as it's strictly a political agreement. Right now the COP is in a plenary session, with numerous countries expressing vehement objections to the accord. Notably and somewhat curiously, the President of the Maldives expressed impassioned support for the accord, urging the other parties to formally adopt it, and thereby allow the accord's funding mechanisms to come into operation.

The COP is a body run by consensus. Without unanimity decisions go nowhere. The UK has put forward a novel proposal, however, that would allow countries unhappy with the accord to "abstain," thereby noting their objections while still allowing the accord to begin operating (i.e., allowing the money to flow). Failing that, the COP President will have little choice but to close the session without an agreement; though I imagine some effort will be made to continue the work done under the AWG-KP and AWG-LCA tracks.

Part 1 of Press Conference

Part 2 of Press Conference

Climate Scoreboard: Current Proposals Put Us at 750 ppm!

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:23:00 +0000

Check out this amazingly cool tool by the folks at Climate Interactive. The tool, the Climate Scoreboard, uses the Climate Rapid Overview and Decision-support Simulator (C-ROADS) to "calculate the long-term climate impacts of proposals under consideration in the negotiations to produce a global climate treaty."

What's the upshot of the tool? Business as usual takes us to a scorching 965 ppm by 2100. Confirmed proposals, however, get us to only to 780 ppm. Catastrophic by any measure.

Unchopping a Tree

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:54:00 +0000

A powerful video by the artist Maya Lin entitled "Unchopping a Tree." The video debuted at COP-15. To learn more, go here.

Maya Lin - Unchopping a Tree from What is Missing? Foundation on Vimeo.

Video of President Obama's Climate Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:50:00 +0000

Here's a video of President Obama's speech at the COP today.

A Frustrated President Obama (and a Frustrated World)

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:19:00 +0000

President Obama delivered a climate speech to some 119 heads of state at COP-15 today. Throughout the ten minute speech, he struck a somewhat frustrated, impatient tone, noting repeatedly that the "time for talk is over" and that international negotiations over the years had produced little in the way of real results.

He had this to say about the likelihood of the conference resulting in meaningful international action on climate change:

"For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, I have to be honest, as the world watches us today, I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt right now, and it hangs in the balance."

It deserves noting that a principle reason international negotiations have dragged on for decades, producing nothing in the way of meaningful results--i.e., global net reductions in GHG emissions and real financing for the developing world--is the U.S. has worked assiduously and effectively to block any real progress on the issue.

I think we have turned a corner with the Obama administration, but one thing (among others) stood out in his speech as particularly troubling to me.

Responsibility

The President noted that "as the world’s largest economy and as the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our responsibility to address climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility." This latter part of the sentence is a favorite dig of the administration against their arch-nemesis in the climate discussions, China, which is now the world's largest emitter of GHGs--a fact that U.S. officials love to mention. The U.S., of course, is by far the largest historical emitter of GHGs.

What troubles me most is what he said after this.

Mitigation. Transparency. Financing. It’s a clear formula — one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities.

For those familiar with international environmental law, this is a clear departure from the well-accepted principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR). At first I thought Obama had merely erred in his phrasing, calling it "responses" instead of "responsibility." I've since learned the official advance text also included this startling departure.

The principle of CBDR, enshrined in the UNFCCC, of which the U.S. is a party, essentially means that all countries have a common responsibility to care for the environment--and in this case the climate--but that their respective responsibilities are different, and depend on various factors such as levels of development, national priorities, and the like.

Obama's phrasing can be interpreted, I think legitimately, to be a stark departure from this notion, eschewing the U.S.'s clear historical culpability for the climate problem, and instead focusing simply on "responses." As in let's not think about the past, and how responsible the U.S. is for the predicament we're in, let's just focus on the future. Indeed, Obama also stated "it is better for us to act than to talk; it’s better for us to choose action over inaction; the future over the past."

Responses should be predicated on responsibility. And that responsibility is built, in large part, upon the actions we have taken in the past.

Much Adieu About Something

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:54:00 +0000

As others have noted, this was perhaps the most poorly organized conference in the history of conferences. The COP-15 organizers had the inscrutably brilliant notion that accrediting 45,000 people for a venue that can hold only 15,000 people was a good idea.

Copenhagen is uncharacteristically cold right now--replete with biting wind and snow. On Tuesday I stood in line for about 2 hours waiting to get into the Bella Center. Unfortunately, the organizers again had the brilliant logistical acumen to put accredited attendees (with secondary badges) in the same line as attendees who have yet to receive accreditation. Once someone figured this gaff out, I was pulled out of the line and was inside the Bella Center within 15 minutes. Here's a brief clip I took while standing in line.

You Snooze, You Lose!

On Thursday (today) and Friday, NGO access to the Bella Center was highly restricted. How highly? Of the 45,000 registered NGO and other non-party attendees, only 300 were given passes! Last night, while I slept, I received several frantic calls and emails from a member of our CU delegation. She was endeavoring to inform me that she had received a proverbial golden ticket (1 of the 300), and wanted me to confirm that I would take it. Alas, I snoozed and lost. She had to put in someone else's name when she didn't hear back from me.

Not a total loss. Most of the side-events have moved off-site to other locations, enabling the legions of people that now cannot get into the Bella Center to attend. I'm currently writing from the Crown Plaza, just south of the Bella Center, waiting to attend a side-event on black carbon. Within the Bella Center, the high-level ministerial meetings are closed to non-party delegates (i.e., NGOs and press), so there wouldn't have been much to see in person anyway. But still . . .

Angels in Hopenhagen

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:12:00 +0000

The picture's a little blurry (iphone), but you get the idea. The left sign reads "for heaven's sake." The right sign reads "don't kill Kyoto." The picture is telling: at this point it will take divine intervention to keep Kyoto alive.

Caught Between the Climate Rock and the Political Hard Place

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:48:00 +0000

John Broder wrote an article in today's New York Times about the significant difficulties President Obama faces in trying to wring something meaningful out of the talks here in Copenhagen. He's definitely in a tough spot--though not an impossible one. He needs to convince the international community--particularly the developing countries--that the U.S. is serious about taking the steps needed to reduce its own massive greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, however, conventional political wisdom suggests that he needs to be very careful to not get ahead of the Senate, a lesson derived from the failure of the Senate to ratify then Vice President Al Gore's signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 (Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, for a treaty to become U.S. law, it must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate; under Article IV, it then becomes a "supreme law of the land" trumping any conflicting federal or state law.).

The day before Thanksgiving, President Obama pledged that the U.S. would reduce its GHG emissions by about 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. This is the same target embodied by the House version of climate legislation (Waxman-Markey, H.R. 2454), and in the range (the lower range) of the targets being discussed in the Senate.

There are at least two major "issues" (aka problems awaiting solutions) with this commitment, however. First, the pledge is essentially contingent on the Senate passing legislation to implement a domestic GHG reduction system, such as cap-and-trade. To implement a domestic system for achieving the target without such legislation would require the President to travel the politically risky regulatory route--meaning that the EPA, under its existing authority, would promulgate rules for a domestic cap-and-trade system. This week the EPA released its so-called "endangerment finding," which declares that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of the American people.” This lays the procedural foundation for the agency to regulate GHGs from both stationary and mobile emission sources.

The second "issue" relates to the effectiveness of the pledge's 17 percent emissions reduction target. If achieved, the 2020 target would translate to an emission reduction of about 4 percent below U.S. emissions in 1990. Most climate scientists agree that even if adopted globally, this level of reductions is inadequate to the task of preventing the worst effects of global warming. The IPCC has indicated reductions of 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 are needed to achieve this.

So here's the rub. The President has offered a commitment to reduce U.S. GHG emissions. But implementing it will require the legislative cooperation of the Senate. The target, however, is anemic. Much more is needed. Being more ambitious, however, runs the risk of alienating the Senate and jeopardizing the chance of any U.S. GHG reduction system--anemic or not. To go the regulatory route would mean further offending the Senate by bypassing them entirely.

Not an easy route to navigate.

Copenhagen Here I ... zzz

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:09:00 +0000

After winding our way from Denver to Chicago to Amsterdam, Julie Teel and I arrived in Copenhagen this afternoon. Julie managed the feat of sleeping on the plane; I did not (despite the valiant efforts of Tylenol PM and several "beverages"). Tomorrow ... more posts from the land of the COP. Today ... sleep. (preceded, of course, by a few more beverages).

Friedman gets it wrong (again)

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin L. Doran) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:41:00 +0000

Opining for the op-ed page of New York Times, Thomas Friedman writes:

Frankly, I found it very disappointing to read a leading climate scientist writing that he used a “trick” to “hide” a putative decline in temperatures or was keeping contradictory research from getting a proper hearing. Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years — and the world never made a fuss. That, though, is no excuse for serious climatologists not adhering to the highest scientific standards at all times.

Unfortunately (for his legions of relatively clueless readers), Friedman has it wrong. As numerous commentators have shown (e.g., here and here), Phil Jones--the now former head of the climate center whose emails were hacked--was using a "trick" to combine older tree ring data with thermometer data.