Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Reports From Four Fronts in the War on Warming
Andrew C Revkin, New York Times
Over the last few decades, as scientists have intensified their study of the human effects on climate and of the effects of climate change on humans, a common theme has emerged: in both respects, the world is a very unequal place.
In almost every instance, the people most at risk from climate change live in countries that have contributed the least to the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases linked to the recent warming of the planet.
Those most vulnerable countries also tend to be the poorest. And the countries that face the least harm — and that are best equipped to deal with the harm they do face — tend to be the richest. To advocates of unified action to curb greenhouse gases, this growing realization is not welcome news.
“The original idea was that we were all in this together, and that was an easier idea to sell,” said Robert O. Mendelsohn, an economist at Yale. “But the research is not supporting that. We’re not in it together.” ..
Disparities like these have prompted a growing array of officials in developing countries and experts on climate, environmental law and diplomacy to insist that the first world owes the third world a climate debt. The obligation of the established greenhouse-gas emitters to help those most imperiled by warming derives from the longstanding legal concept that “the polluter pays,” many experts say. ..
“If you drive your car into your neighbor’s living room, don’t you owe your neighbor something?” Dr. Gleick said. “On this planet, we’re driving the climate car into our neighbors’ living room, and they don’t have insurance and we do.”
(3 Apr 2007)
Good article makes clear the enormous differences in capacity to adapt to climate change, as well as raising the uncomfortable issue of responsibility for emissions to date.-LJ
Tax on Carbon Emissions Gains Support
Juliet Eilperin & Steven Mufson, Washington Post
As lawmakers on Capitol Hill push for a cap-and-trade system to rein in the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, an unlikely alternative has emerged from an ideologically diverse group of economists and industry leaders: a carbon tax.
Most legislators view advocating any tax increase as tantamount to political suicide. But a coalition of academics and polluters now argues that a simple tax on each ton of emissions would offer a more efficient and less bureaucratic way of curbing carbon dioxide buildup, which scientists have linked to climate change.
“We want to do the least damage to the growth of GDP,” said Michael Canes, a private consultant and former chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, who led a Capitol Hill briefing on the subject in late February sponsored by the conservative George C. Marshall Institute. Between a cap system and a carbon tax, “a carbon tax will be the much more cost-effective way to go,” he said, though he added that there are other ways to reduce emissions. ..
Environmentalists are split on a carbon tax. Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense, which is handing out baseball caps emblazoned with the slogan “Just Cap It” on Capitol Hill, called such a tax “an interesting distraction.” “It doesn’t give us the guarantee the emissions will go down,” he said. ..
(1 Apr 2007)
Climate change: Urgent and fair action is needed
Janey Stanley, New Matilda
.. Internationally, the social cost of climate change for poorer nations and communities is receiving increased attention, but the social cost for the poorer sectors within wealthier countries is yet to be placed firmly on the policy agenda.
What might these social costs be? In work commissioned by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Cambiar lists many impacts.
Policy responses aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon, will also have a social cost. The most likely scenario is that a tax will be placed on carbon emissions, or emissions trading regimes will be introduced, so that market forces can come into play to reduce carbon usage. To date, anecdotal evidence suggests that the impact of carbon pricing will be felt hardest by those on a low income.
New work commissioned by the Brotherhood of St Laurence now provides clear evidence to support this proposition. Dr Peter Brain from the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research has analysed the impact of a $25 AUD carbon price on a range of household types in Victoria. $25 is a conservative estimate, with Sir Nicholas Stern suggesting that the long term price might be more like $US25, if a concerted international response to climate change happens soon. Delayed responses imply a much higher long term carbon price according to Stern.
While it is early days in such an analysis, a carbon tax of $25 a tonne will cost a high income Victorian household with two incomes and no children (DINKS) an estimated $1333 per year, or 1.6% of household expenditure. This can be compared to poor households, where the cost will be $596. However, this amounts to 2.3% of total poor household expenditure, illustrating the regressive nature of carbon pricing. The relative impact on the poor household is more than twice that on the high income DINKS household, reflecting diminishing marginal utility of income.
Dr Brain’s analysis shows that the four household categories most adversely impacted in relative welfare terms by carbon pricing are poor households, unemployed households, retired aged pension households and households with children where government benefits exceed 30% of income. The lowest relative welfare impact is on double income households with no children, households with greater than $70,000 income where the head of the household is aged over 50 and high income tertiary educated households.
Janet Stanley works in the research and policy section of the Brotherhood of St Laurence and is a staff member at Monash University.
The Brotherhood of St Lawrence is a long established and highly principled charitable agency
(30 Mar 2007)
See also Welfare, climate and environment groups join forces to tackle climate change.
No planet, no profits
Louise Williams, Sydney Morning Herald
For all the talk, where is the action? Australia is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases, has one of the lowest renewable fuel targets in the world (2 per cent), no national carbon trading market and no enforceable target for emissions reduction. Apart from the NSW government scheme for electricity retailers, much of corporate Australia can pollute with impunity.
Yet, Australia has more companies on the global Dow Jones Sustainability Index (5 to 6 per cent of places) than the size of our economy would suggest. And last year, the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change published a devastating investigation into the economic costs to industry and agriculture of doing nothing as the climate warms.
Its corporate members – Westpac, Visy, Origin Energy, Insurance Australia Group, BP and Swiss Re – formed an alliance with the Australian Conservation Foundation. Their pledge: to clean up their acts and lobby the Federal Government to establish a market signal for carbon emissions, so businesses can factor in the future cost of emissions.
(27 Mar 2007)
Govt applauds businesses acting on climate change
Chris Carter (NZ Minister for Housing)
The government is applauding businesses that are making a positive contribution to tackling climate change and improving environmental sustainability.
Westpac today launched the Green Home Loan – an initiative that helps homeowners to make their houses more energy efficient and environmentally friendly. Contact Energy, Insurance Australia Group, Meridian Energy and Bank of New Zealand have all recently made moves to develop more sustainable business practices.
Housing and Conservation Minister Chris Carter, who attended the launch of Westpac’s initiative in Auckland today, said the scheme was a great example of how businesses could support New Zealanders to be more sustainable and reduce their environmental impact.
“I congratulate Westpac on their innovation. By helping homeowners to make better decisions about how they build, improve and use their houses, Westpac is also helping preserve New Zealand’s natural heritage,” Chris Carter said. ..
(23 Mar 2007)
