Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Climate In The Capital
Big Gav, Peak Energy (Australia)
The APEC conference has broken up with some meaningless spin about aspiring to “do something” about carbon emissions one day as the final puff of hot air emerging out of the deserted and over-policed canyons of downtown Sydney. The Herald Sun reports that the reception offshore was chilly even in the US.
(11 September 2007)
I collected some stories on the APEC conference, but Big Gav has a more up-to-date set of headlines and excerpts. -BA
Backseat policy-making
Glenn Hurowitz, Gristmill
Ex-heads of state tell current heads of state how to solve climate crisis
—
If you’re into exclusive clubs, check this one out: the Club de Madrid, membership limited to former heads of state. (Actually, even heads of state can get blackballed.) Those former heads of state are trying to get their successors to do what they couldn’t and tackle the climate crisis. In collaboration with the United Nations Foundation, the Club today released their recommendations for what the world should do on the next round of climate crisis. The ex-heads acknowledge the severity of the crisis and call for current leaders to facilitate rapid reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, or face massive disaster:
Avoiding such a future requires global greenhouse emissions to peak in the next 10-15 years, followed by substantial reductions of at least 60% by 2050 compared to 1990 — a formidable task that requires international cooperation and collective action without further delay. The cost of taking action now, however, is small — about 1% of global GDP, according to the Stern Review — and the benefits are large compared with the much heavier penalties of postponing action. The costs of both mitigation and adaptation will rise substantially with delay.
They call for all countries, developing and developed, to take on concrete greenhouse-gas-emission targets, but note that that will only happen if the next round is perceived to be equitable (i.e., the United States and other rich countries make cuts themselves and don’t just lecture poor countries about what they should do). Here’s the crux of their recommendation:
All countries should commit to reduce collectively global emissions by at least 60% below the 1990 level by 2050. Developed countries should take the lead in emissions reduction by adopting effective targets and timetables. As a first step, this could include a commitment to reduce their collective emissions by 30% by 2020. Rapidly industrializing countries should commit to reduce their energy intensity [greenhouse gas emissions per unit of economic growth] by 30% by 2020 (an average of 4% per year) and agree to emissions reduction targets afterwards.
They also call for an international carbon tax system, but are light on details of how this would work. They argue that carbon taxes are “easier to implement than cap-and-trade schemes and are economically efficient.
(10 September 2007)
Bin Laden on global warming
Osama bin Laden, transcript (via Counterterrorism Blog)
…In fact, the life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations, yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord, with the knowledge that the statistic speaks of the death and displacement of the millions of human beings because of that, especially in Africa.
This greatest of plagues and most dangerous of threats to the lives of humans is taking place in an accelerating fashion as the world is being dominated by the democratic system, which confirms its massive failure to protect humans and their interests from the greed and avarice of the major corporations and their representatives.”
(7 September 2007)
On his latest video, Osama bin Laden criticizes U.S. footdragging on Kyoto. As the effects of global warming become more pronounced, one can expect that current U.S. climate policy will be the subject of more and more propaganda attacks. -BA
UPDATE (Sept 11): A similar point was made by UK Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup: Can we fight terrorism by reducing CO2 emissions?.
NRDC’s Dan Lashof analyzes cost implications of cap-and-trade, carbon tax policies (Video and perhaps transcript)
OnPoint, E&E TV
As Congress begins to focus more heavily on climate discussions and hearings, one of the most important issues they will need to address is the cost of implementing a national climate policy. Which legislative proposal is the most cost-effective but still addresses the environment adequately? How might energy legislation help to mitigate the costs of a broader climate policy?
During today’s OnPoint, Dan Lashof, deputy director and science director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center, analyzes the economic implications of key legislative proposals and explains why he believes a cap-and-trade policy is more promising than a carbon tax.
(10 September 2007)
NGOs Unite on Earth’s Greatest Crisis
Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS – A three-day meeting of over 2,500 delegates from more than 500 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and representing 80 countries affirmed that climate change “is potentially the most serious threat humanity and our environment have ever faced.”
A declaration adopted Friday warns that global warming can possibly have a devastating impact on virtually all aspects of life in the planet, including “catastrophic effects on our earth’s ecosystem, biodiversity and infrastructure.”
Among other potential threats singled out were: the significant reduction of available food, water, energy and transport; massive migration of populations and the possible destruction of entire cultures and small island nations; significant damage to economic, political, cultural and social bases; and irreversible harm to the lifestyles of indigenous peoples.
The meeting, described as one of the largest single gathering of NGOs, was organised by the U.N.’s Department of Public Information, which has been hosting similar conferences over the last 59 years. This year’s theme was: “Climate Change: How it Impacts Us All.”
(7 September 2007)
Also at Common Dreams.
Kings of the coal habit
Jeremy Leggett, Khaleej Times
THROUGH his long years of greenhouse denial, George Bush must have been particularly grateful to John Howard. The Australian prime minister was quick to join Bush in refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and has batted for his country’s coal interests as trenchantly as Bush has batted for US coal and oil interests.
Now Bush has had to deal with the impact on American public opinion of Hurricane Katrina and Al Gore’s movie, and can no longer afford to ignore climate change. Howard, contending with a killer drought, is similarly finding that greenhouse denial is out of bounds. The flow of Australian rivers has fallen by a staggering 70 per cent in recent decades. All Australia’s major cities are in drought. The “big dry” in the Murray-Darling basin threatens 40 per cent of food production. Global warming has become an issue in the January elections.
Howard hosts the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit in Sydney this week. Bush will be one of the leaders attending. Everyone who cares about the greenhouse threat should train a microscope on their actions. The fate of human civilisation will probably hinge on the fossil-fuel decisions of just six nations, and five of them are members of Apec.
(6 September 2007)
