by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger

It is a great pleasure to be here at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies for this retrospective on "The Death of Environmentalism." In early 2005 Yale invited us to debate that essay, and since then the School has continued to demonstrate a genuine interest in what our friend and colleague Peter Teague has taken to calling ecological innovation. You train your students to ask hard questions -- we saw this first hand in 2010 Breakthrough Fellow and Yale School Masters candidate David Mitchell -- and your flagship publication, Yale360, is publishing some of the most interesting green thinkers today. We are grateful once again for this opportunity to reflect on the nearly seven years since we wrote our essay, and make some new arguments about what the green movement must do now.

Seven years ago the two of us started interviewing America's environmental leaders with the intention of writing a report on the politics of global warming for the October 2004 meeting of the Environmental Grantmakers Association. We came away from the experience deeply disappointed. Not one of the environmental leaders we interviewed articulated a compelling vision or strategy for dealing with the challenge. None expressed much interest in rethinking their assumptions about the problem or the solutions. What we heard again and again during our interviews were the same old riffs that green leaders had been repeating since the late 1980's. Global warming would be solved through the same kinds of policies that we had used to address past pollution problems such as acid rain. Most were confident that John Kerry was, with their help, about to be elected president, and the biggest funders in the movement told us they were just a few steps away from passing cap and trade legislation.

That October we delivered our paper, "The Death of Environmentalism," at the Environmental Grantmakers Association conference. While leaders at environmental philanthropies and national green groups hoped that the debate the essay started would just go away, "The Death of Environmentalism" struck a cord with many others and sparked a spirited debate. Many took the paper's arguments personally and, without question, the most common reaction to our essay was "I'm not dead." Our friend Adam Werbach gave a speech called "Is Environmentalism Dead," wherein he suggested that environmentalists make common cause with a broader coalition of progressive interests in hopes of building a broader and more diverse movement. And Yale's own Gus Speth questioned whether capitalism itself was compatible with ecological sustainability and suggested a radical shift in values was required to deal with the problem.

Continue reading "The Long Death of Environmentalism" »

By Jesse Jenkins and Devon Swezey

Forget 80% by 2050 and 450ppm. Stop fixating on emissions reduction targets and timetables. As UN climate talks kick off in Copenhagen, Denmark, if you want a number to focus the world's attention on, try this one: $10.5 trillion.

That's the scale of additional investment required between now and 2030 to put the world's energy system on a lower-carbon path, according to the world energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency.

Without measurable progress that dramatically increases global investments in clean energy, we can forget stabilizing global temperatures or atmospheric carbon dioxide at any level. And as the IEA makes clear, the world's governments must lead the way in making massive public investments to rapidly develop and deploy an array of clean energy technologies capable of sustainably and affordably powering the planet.

So for those following the progress in Copenhagen, keep that sense of scale -- $10.5 trillion -- and just one phrase on your mind: Show me the money!

Enough With the Targets and Timetables

In the days leading up to the UN climate summit beginning today in Copenhagen, the focus has been on pronouncements from world leaders establishing various national targets to reduce or curb the growth of the carbon dioxide emissions principally driving global warming.

In July of this year, the world's 17 largest economies declared support for "an aspirational global goal" to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050. Then, the world watched in recent weeks as first the United States, then China and most recently Brazil and India put their emissions pledges on the table. Each would cut their emissions some amount by some date, with the developed countries outlining targets for absolute cuts to CO2 emissions and most developing countries, including China and India, announcing reductions in the carbon intensity of their economies (aka CO2 per GDP).

Continue reading "$10.5 Trillion by 2030: the Number that Should be at the Heart of Copenhagen Climate Talks" »

A new info-graphic from the New York Times, released today as UN climate talks begin in Copenhagen, looks at the "Lessons from Kyoto," the global treaty that's ongoing fate will be the focus of UN climate negotiations beginning today in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The graphic gets the lessons pretty much dead-on, including how little actual progress any nations have made towards meeting their Kyoto "obligations." As the Times notes, "The legacy of the Kyoto Protocol is mixed." Of the 36 wealthy nations who agreed under the 1997 treaty to cut their emissions by an average of 5% below historic 1990 levels, just 18 are on track to meet their targets, almost all of them in Europe.

As the graphic illustrates, the bulk of these "successful" nations are former members of the Soviet bloc, and almost all saw deep economic declines after the fall of the Soviet Union, which conveniently occurred after the 1990 emissions baseline year used in the Kyoto treaty. Deindustrializing Eastern bloc nations, including East Germany, saw big cuts in their emissions and made compliance with the Kyoto protocol easy. Better yet, for these nations, exceeding their Kyoto "obligations" left them with excess credits under the treaty framework that they could sell to other nations struggling to cut their own emissions.

Continue reading "NYTimes Gets "Lessons from Kyoto" Right" »

The United States may be stuck in the middle of a climate conundrum. A proposal to establish border tariffs to account for the carbon associated with the imported manufactured products, like steel, looks critical to securing the support of key swing Senators interested in protecting the competitive position of American manufacturing. ... Yet ... those same tariff provisions that could win passage of a U.S. climate bill are firmly opposed by China and other developing nations and could both damage Sino-American trade relations and fissure international climate negotiations.

Breakthrough's Yael Borofsky wrote that back in October, and this climate conundrum continues to present perhaps the thorniest negotiating point as world leaders prepare to meet for international climate talks in Copenhagen next week. Indeed, on the eve of the global climate talks, the negotiating positions of the United States and major developing economies, including China and India, appear to remain at loggerheads.

In a letter to President Obama today, nine moderate Democratic Senators, all key swings for climate legislation or ratification of any international climate treaty, reiterated their demands that any international climate framework U.S. negotiators sign in Copenhagen must include comparable action from all major economies and allow tariffs to adjust prices on imports from any nation that does not agree to bindings agreements to reduce emissions "in specific trade- and energy-intensive economic sectors."

"Climate change is a serious and growing threat to the United States and the world," the Senators wrote. "Smart climate change policies would guard against these risks while also spurring clean energy investments that promote economic growth and create good domestic jobs."

"Importantly, however, poorly designed climate policies could also jeopardize U.S. national interest," the Senators warned, "by imposing burdens on U.S. consumers, companies and workers without solving the climate challenge."

To address these challenges, the U.S. should seek to negotiate a new international climate agreement under which, "All major economies should adopt ambitious, quantifiable, measurable, reportable and verifiable national actions" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Furthermore, U.S. climate policy, the Senators wrote, should include provisions to implement border adjustment tariffs if necessary to help shield domestic industries facing international competition from countries that have not implemented carbon reduction requirements for their industrial sectors.

Here's the key excerpt from the letter, signed by Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Mark Begich of Alaska:

Continue reading "Climate Conundrum Continues in Run-up to Copenhagen" »

Cross-posted from Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog

China has put some numbers on its carbon intensity pledge -- that is, its aim to reduce carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP. China has promised to reduced its carbon intensity of GDP by 40-45% by 2020. While a few folks have been fooled (or are trying to fool you) into thinking that it is meaningful, others including the Obama Administration are not fooled. The reality is a bit more subtle and complex than either of these perspectives.

The head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change , Yvo de Boer spun the announcement as a breakthrough:

"The US commitment to specific, mid-term emission cut targets and China's commitment to specific action on energy efficiency can unlock two of the last doors to a comprehensive agreement. Let there be no doubt that we need continued strong ambition and leadership,"

In The New York Times, the Obama Administration was a bit less enthusiastic:

A senior Obama administration official said that the United States had pressed hard for a public commitment from China and was relieved that it had delivered. But the official, who spoke anonymously because of the delicacy of the matter, called the carbon intensity figure "disappointing," and said that the administration hoped it represented a gambit that would be negotiated upward at Copenhagen or in subsequent talks.

Understanding the various receptions of the proposed target from China requires understanding a bit of the geopolitical context. Europeans simply want the US and China to come to the table talking about numbers, so any proposal is a step forward. Meantime, the US wants to avoid being cast as the international climate bad guy so will do whatever it can to portray its own proposed 17% cut from 2005 levels as more ambitious that China's intensity target.

But what do the numbers actually mean?

Continue reading "China's Carbon Intensity Pledge" »

With the news outlets writing obituaries for the Kyoto Protocol framework, a leaked letter from Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh suggests that even tough-talking India may be prepared to move past the mourning stage and negotiate at upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen.

Although Ramesh denied that he was in favor of a Kyoto-alternative, according to the Times Online (UK), the letter reveals he is not averse to the "national schedules" concept proposed by Australia at climate talks in Bangkok earlier this month:

"We must welcome initiatives to bring the US into the mainstream if need be through a special mechanism," the letter reportedly said. "If the Australian proposal of a schedule maintains this basic distinction and nature of differential obligations we should have no great objections."

India and China represent the two largest developing nations in the G77, which continues to insist that a global climate agreement be based on the Kyoto framework, largely because it does not require such nations to make binding commitments to climate change mitigation. If these two leaders of the developing world shift stances, however, it would seal the fate of a framework whose failure was set in motion when the U.S. refused to sign on over a decade ago.

Continue reading "Leaked Letter Says India May Cooperate on Climate Without Kyoto" »

More than a year after Breakthrough's Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger pronounced the Kyoto Protocol dead in "Scrap Kyoto," the rest of the world may be catching on as pressure mounts to produce a workable climate treaty that will encourage global action. National Public Radio wrote its own obituary, of sorts, with regard to international opinion on the framework last week:

"The landmark Kyoto climate treaty, a global warming pact negotiated 12 years ago, is unlikely to live on after its 2012 end date. During climate talks in Bangkok last week it became apparent that after the treaty's initial term ends, a new treaty will almost certainly take its place."

While developing countries have expressed anger that negotiations in Copenhagen may not focus on a Kyoto framework, the legitimacy of this anger is questionable. After all, a major reason that the Bush administration refused to sign the agreement was that Kyoto did not require participation from developing nations. Thus, while such countries are not wrong in arguing that they are not to blame for current carbon emissions levels, it still is illogical to build another treaty based on a dated framework that deals with only a subset of countries, instead of all of them, regardless of culpability. As top U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing told NPR:

"The notion that we should have an agreement which looks explicitly and exclusively at a handful of countries, doesn't seem right. The whole purpose of this is to move the world to a better place, not to move one set of countries down that road."

So, while Sudanese diplomat, Lumumba Di-Aping told NPR that scrapping Kyoto will be like "throwing away your baby and saying, 'No, I will have a new one," viewing the Kyoto Protocol as a so-called baby or brain-child is lip service to its creators, but not relevant to what will actually provide a foundation for an actionable global strategy to mitigate climate change. Not to harp, but legislation is not comparable to children in any way, since there is no obligation to remain loyal to a global treaty that not only failed to achieve global agreement, but also failed to achieve most of its desired results.

Continue reading "Kyoto Pronounced Dead, Makes Room for New Kaya-Direct Framework" »

As climate negotiations in Copenhagen rapidly approach, it seems the road is paved with good intentions - and potholes. While wealthy nations, like the United States and the EU, are willing to provide financial and technology aid to developing nations, at this point such countries have a will but not a way to offer the predicted $100 billion annually by 2020 to ensure that developing nations build their economies on efficient and clean energy technologies.

As recent New York Times coverage points out, the challenge of backing up commitments with actual money has proven a "blind spot" in preliminary talks:

"But to date there is no concrete strategy to raise such huge sums. There is not even agreement about which nations should pay or in what proportion...

Perhaps even more troublesome, the United Nations Adaptation Fund, which officially began operating in 2008 to help poor countries finance projects to blunt the effects of global warming, remains an empty shell, largely because rich nations have failed to come through with the donations they promised. The fund now holds about $18 million, a tiny fraction of what it was supposed to have, according to fund officials."

While even more cliches about unsubstantiated claims come to mind, this situation could create a serious negotiating challenge come December. Regardless of willingness, developing countries absolutely need the support of richer nations if the world will ever realize a clean energy future and mitigate the effects of climate change.

Continue reading "Preliminary Climate Talks Stumble Over Available Finances for Developing Nations" »

Cross-posted from Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog

In my latest Bridges column I read the climate tea leaves to give my best guess as to what we should expect. Here is an excerpt:

Even with all the policy complexity and political noise, it has not been difficult for anyone paying attention to realize that climate policies are in deep trouble. So what has been the primary response of governments? The tried-and-true strategy is to identify an enemy and focus attention on anything but the failing climate policies. In this case, the enemies identified by the rich, Western countries are India and China, with their huge populations, rapid economic growth, and increasing carbon footprints to match. Repeating a refrain heard in 1997 during negotiations that resulted in the largely ineffectual Kyoto Protocol, we again hear that without action from India and China, the climate policies of the developed countries will all be for naught.

Please have a look, comments welcomed.

The United States may be stuck in the middle of a climate conundrum. A proposal to establish border tariffs to account for the carbon associated with the imported manufactured products, like steel, looks critical to securing the support of key swing Senators interested in protecting the competitive position of American manufacturing. Without these key swing votes, including Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown and at least nine of his Democratic colleagues, a Senate climate bill has little hope of passing, which climate advocates argue would hamstring U.S. negotiators trying to forge an international climate agreement in Copenhagen this December.

Yet according to the New Scientist, those same tariff provisions that could win passage of a U.S. climate bill are firmly opposed by China and other developing nations and could both damage Sino-American trade relations and fissure international climate negotiations:

"Following lobbying by heavy industries, the US Congress is considering imposing tariffs on imports from China and other developing nations. That could be a deal-breaker for poor nations at December's climate change talks in Copenhagen.

If Congress passes laws imposing a limit on US greenhouse gas emissions, energy-intensive sectors such as steel-making and cement manufacture would almost certainly face increased costs. Competitors in China and other developing nations not subject to similar restrictions - and China has said that it will not set itself an emissions target - might be able to produce steel more cheaply, and take business away from US firms."

With critical Senate Democrats demanding border tariffs, there is no chance the bill will pass without their inclusion. Alternately, China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and India will not be inclined to cooperate on an international agreement if they think the final legislation will include border tariffs.

Continue reading "Carbon Border Tariffs Put U.S. In Climate Conundrum" »

by Michael Shellenberger

In his speech announcing his new climate initiative, George Soros criticized emissions trading because it allows financial firms to manipulate the process. He announced a policy advocacy center, funded at $10 million per year, to be headed by Thomas Heller, a legal scholar who wrote a long critique, 'Beyond Kyoto,' criticizing the treaty framework as largely unworkable for Pew in 2003.

Heller criticizes the framework for being inadequate to engage developing countries, faults offsets as unable to solve the additionality problem, and promotes a sector-based alternative similar to the one advocated by Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics and Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado. Such an approach arrives at a time when negotiators are looking to a different set of metrics for developing nations -- emissions reductions equivalents like investments in technology -- to shape the Copenhagen agreement.

Soros' speech and Heller's role give new momentum to those who have argued that the focus on emissions targets and timetables is fundamentally flawed in that it fails to recognize the development needs of poor countries and the lack of cheap clean energy technology to replace fossil fuels.

Heller writes:

"In summary, the present climate regime adopts an architecture centered on emission outputs, with little consideration of inputs closely tied with fundamental development needs; creates a market-based mechanism with only limited potential to channel private investment toward large-scale climate-friendly endeavors; and provides no assurance of significant or stable assistance from developed country governments. In these circumstances, it is understandable if there is little sentiment or incentive among developing countries to expend serious effort in exploring the road beyond Kyoto."

Heller recognizes climate will not be a top priority for developing nations:

"However, to the extent that developing nations regard climate concerns as no more than potential barriers to their ability to reduce poverty and increase income levels, climate issues will not command the attention of core political actors."

Continue reading "Soros Slams Emissions Trading, Hires Kyoto Critic" »

A week of preliminary UN climate talks in Bangkok come to a close today with little concrete progress to show for it. With just two months left until much-anticipated negotiations in Copenhagen, it will be "extraordinarily difficult" for the U.S. to agree to specific emissions reduction targets in an international climate treaty, warns the United States' deputy climate envoy Jonathan Pershing.

E&E News's ClimateWire reports (sub. required):

[T]he chief U.S. negotiator acknowledged that the United States may not agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a treaty this year until Congress passes its climate legislation.

"It will be extraordinarily difficult for the U.S. to commit to a specific number in the absence of action from Congress," State Department deputy climate envoy Jonathan Pershing said. "The question is open as to how much we can do. It's not really possible to answer."

Some progress was made in Bangkok, said Kim Carstensen, leader of the global climate initiative at WWF. But "on issues that require political breakthroughs, they've not made any real progress," she said. "That means targets, finance, institutions and the legal form of the outcome in Copenhagen."

While efforts to drive towards global agreement on binding emissions targets stall and both the United States and key developing nations, including China and India, balk at such proposals, a series of recent recommendations are establishing a growing consensus for an alternative to the targets and timetables approach that has repeatedly failed to make either political or substantive progress.

This emerging climate consensus would scrap the Kyoto Protocol's focus largely-symbolic emissions targets and timetables in favor of specific, actionable national commitments to the two things that actually drive down global emissions: accelerating the deployment of clean energy and the improvement of energy intensity in key sectors of the economy.

Alongside real commitments from the world's rich nations to help provide financial and technical support to speed the diffusion of clean technologies to the world's poorer nations, this more direct framework can build off of policies already underway in key nations, including the U.S., China and India, and result in far more concrete climate action than the empty commitments to symbolic emissions targets.

Continue reading "Climate Envoy: U.S. Unlikely to Commit to Emissions Target This Year" »

Massive investment in clean energy technology, to the tune of approximately $10 trillion over the next two decades, is needed to combat climate change, according to the International Energy Agency's early release of the World Energy Outlook 2009.

The new IEA report argues that the focal point for global climate and clean energy policy should center on three key "opportunities:" (1) accelerating the deployment of clean energy and the decarbonization of the global energy system; (2) improving the energy intensity of national economies; and (3) providing the financing and technology support necessary for clean and sustainable economic growth in the world's developing nations. That advice should be a lesson to negotiators preparing for climate talks this December, where in order to succeed, international policy must focus on concrete and actionable commitments to spur investment in climate change mitigation and clean energy technology, not symbolic and ultimately empty carbon emissions targets.

The truncated report, released on Tuesday, is designed to inform the international climate debate leading up to Copenhagen, and uses two scenarios, the Reference Scenario (no change to existing policies) and the 450 ppm scenario (necessary measures to achieve stability at 450 ppm CO2-e ) to demonstrate the scale of the technology and infrastructure challenges the world faces and the level of action necessary to overcome such obstacles.

Continue reading "IEA Sends Message to Copenhagen Delegates: $10 tn Needed to Combat Climate Change" »

"Copenhagen climate talks are in trouble," say Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger in their new piece for the Washington Post's "Planet Panel", and the solution is to desert "unenforceable emissions targets and timetables," in favor of a new framework built on "technology investment, innovation, and deployment."

You can read an excerpt from the piece below or access the full article here.

Here's the problem in a nutshell. The world will roughly double its consumption of energy by 2050. Reducing emissions by half of today's levels before then will require inventing and deploying low-carbon sources of power that are far cheaper than today's alternatives. That's because no nation will implement pollution controls that raise the price of fossil fuel energy by very much -- certainly not enough for clean power sources to become cost-competitive.

Just as no government will make fossil fuels as expensive as today's low-carbon power sources, no private investors will make the large (multi-billion) investments needed to accelerate energy technology innovation. Only governments can do this. Happily, they have a long track record supporting private sector innovation through R&D and procurement. Examples include agricultural crops, radios, jet airplanes, microchips, computers, the Internet, solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear plants and pharmaceutical drugs.

A new treaty focused on technology investment, innovation, and deployment should include rather than exclude China and other large developing nations. China is already poised to massively out-spend -- and out-compete -- the U.S. in investments in everything from solar panels to nuclear reactors to electric cars.

No treaty can work that is against the economic self-interest of nations. Economic development through new technology has the potential to bring them together. After World War II, the European Coal and Steel Partnership did just that. Through coal and steel the continent was rebuilt, in part with U.S. investments. That partnership was so successful that it is today simply known as the European Union.

It is the creation of the EU -- not national air pollution laws -- that should be the basis for a new agreement in Copenhagen.

Continue reading "Only Technology Policy, Not More Targets and Timetables, Can Save Copenhagen" »

Cross-posted from Roger Pielke, Jr.'s Blog

Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, knows a good negotiating position when he has one. So India now ups the pressure on the United States in order to ensure that India is not tagged as the global bad guy of climate policy. In the Guardian he refers to the Kerry-Boxer Bill in the Senate as not really up to the task:

"The bill that was with the Senate yesterday talks about a 20% cut on 2005 levels, which is really only a measly 5% reduction on 1990 levels," Ramesh told a US-Indian energy conference in Washington, put on by Yale University and The Energy and Resources Institute in Delhi.

He added that America and other developed countries had to commit to deep emissions cuts in the next decade - not by 2050 - if they wanted to see India and China take serious action to contain the rise in their future emissions, as their surging economies expand.

"If we are serious about climate change we should stop talking about 2050. I laugh when countries put up numbers for 2050," Ramesh said.

However, he was almost immediately rebuffed by Obama's climate change envoy, Todd Stern, who said that such a narrow focus on 2020 actions could wreck the prospects of reaching a deal at Copenhagen. "We can talk about that all the way to Copenhagen and for the next two or three years and get nothing done," Stern said. "We have to be practical."

India has categorically stated that they will not commit to limit emissions, and in that they have the support of the chairman of the "policy neutral" IPCC:

. . . Ramesh ruled out any possibility that India would agree to an absolute cap on emissions in the future. "N-O, No," he said. The position was endorsed by RK Pachauri, who heads the IPCC. "Obviously you are not going to ask a country that has 400 million people without a lightbulb in their homes to do the same as a country that has splurge of energy," he told the conference."

And if the US doesn't like it, then its just tough luck, as India has the upper hand here.

Cross-posted from Roger Pielke, Jr.'s Blog

Nature asked Mike Hulme, Tony Juniper, Mark Lynas, Oliver Morton, Ron Oxburgh, Rajendra K. Pachauri, Roger Pielke, Jr., Andrew Revkin & Joseph Romm for a recommendation for a single book to read leading up to Copenhagen, and then to provide a capsule review of that book. You can see what resulted here and offer your own thoughts at the Nature Climate Feedback blog.

As the time for developed and developing nations to come to a global agreement on climate change mitigation and pave the way for productive climate negotiations in Copenhagen dwindles, Australian climate change ambassador Louise Hand proposed an idea that could potentially bring the ongoing stalemate to an end, just in time.

According to Reuter's coverage of the climate talks taking place in Bangkok, Thailand, Hand pitched the delegates on the concept of a national schedule, which, instead of stubbornly insisting on binding emissions targets, commits developing countries to a series of climate mitigation steps that are both economically and realistically feasible. Rich countries would still be free to agree to the targets most of them are so insistent upon.

In this way, all countries involved are demonstrating a commitment to climate change mitigation without putting their growing economies at risk. As Hand remarked, the concept is relatively simple:

"At its core it is a simple idea...Each party would have a national schedule attached to the treaty. In the schedule would be parties' mitigation actions -- economy-wide targets for developed countries; a suite of actions for developing countries."

While some environmentalists are concerned that allowing developing nations to sidestep binding targets represents backsliding from the Kyoto framework, this concept of national schedules may actually prove more effective at reducing emissions than targets, which are typically "magical" climate change solutions rather than specific, achievable action plans.

Continue reading "New "National Schedules" Proposal Could Change International Strategy in Time for Copenhagen" »

Almost as soon as the calls for global cooperative action on climate change finished echoing around the halls of the United Nation Building during the UN Climate Summit in New York on Tuesday, an EU court may have undermined its own climate change mitigation policy by ruling on Wednesday that the governing body overstepped its power when it imposed "excessively strict" emissions quotas on Poland and Estonia in 2007.

Upon hearing the news, the urgent need for climate change action was easily forgotten, and Italy, with other EU members considering following suit, quickly petitioned the EU to increase its carbon emissions quotas - action that is hardly indicative of global cooperation against climate change and demonstrates the unwillingness of countries to submit to any international climate policy that could potentially constrict their economic growth. As Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke, Jr. noted on his blog:

"Absent a world government, the ruling should make clear that which should already be obvious -- there is no global set of institutions capable of overseeing any sort of interlocking, multi-national cap-and-trade programs. If it can't work in the EU it certainly won't work in the UN."

The viability of Europe's emissions trading scheme, which allows firms that exceed their carbon emissions allowances to purchase permits from firms that have successfully reduced theirs, may be threatened by the EU's ruling. In addition to Italy's written request to have its emissions quotas re-considered, the EU court is now facing similar cases involving Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic, according to Deutsche Welle.

Continue reading "EU Court Ruling Reveals "Cracks" In Kyoto Framework" »

Speeches made today at the UN's climate summit may have left much to be desired in the eyes of countries eagerly hoping for the U.S. and China to make specific commitments to emissions reductions in the run-up to climate negotiations in Copenhagen. Yet, willingness on the part of both nations to invest in clean energy technology may signify more direct action to mitigate climate change than any potentially empty emissions promises.

In his speech this morning, China's President Hu Jintao did not agree to binding carbon emissions targets, however, according to the New York Times, he did outline a four step plan that includes reducing the carbon intensity of the economy to 2005 levels by 2020, boosting nuclear and renewables to account for 15% of China's power, increasing forest cover, and furthering action to develop a green economy. According to the UN Climate Change Conference website, Hu promised to cooperate on climate change efforts so long as they aligned with China's ambitious development goals:

"Climate change is an environment issue, but also, and more importantly, a development issue. We should and can only advance efforts to address climate change in the course of development...Out of a sense of responsibility to the world...China has taken and will continue to take determined and practical steps to tackle this challenge,"

While international leaders have put considerable effort into cajoling China, not to mention India, to accept binding emissions reductions targets by the time climate negotiations commence in Copenhagen this December, China's planned stimulus investment of $440-$660 billion in clean energy over the next ten years is far more indicative of China's willingness to mitigate climate change as it simultaneously grows its own economy.

Continue reading "UN Climate Summit: U.S., China Emphasize Clean Energy Investment, Not Binding Emissions Targets" »

With just ten weeks until the world's nations meet in Copenhagen this December to try to hammer out a global consensus on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build a global clean energy economy, Breakthrough's Jesse Jenkins returned to KPFA radio Monday to discuss the coming climate and energy policy debates in the U.S. Senate and on the international stage. Jenkins joined host Mitch Jeserich and Dan Jacobson of Environment California on this week's segment of "Letters to Washington," which aired Monday on KPFA radio in the Bay Area and was syndicated throughout the country this week.

You can listen to the segment below, which begins at 1:25:25...

The two largest carbon offset auditors have been suspended in the last year, the most recent one, SGS UK, was suspended by UN inspectors this past week. A fifth of the $100 billion worth of emissions credits are sourced from offset projects funded by the CDM, whose veracity is called into question by these developments.

By effectively putting a price on carbon, the EU's carbon offsets market is the centerpiece of Europe's commitment to reduce emissions and is a model for the one that stands to be enacted in the U.S. should pending climate legislation (ACES) pass through the Senate. But according to the Times Online, the legitimacy of this market, which would be reliant on the large scale availability of international emissions offsets, is cast into doubt.

"SGS UK had its accreditation suspended last week after it was unable to prove its staff had properly vetted projects that were then approved for the carbon-trading scheme, or even that they were qualified to do so... SGS is the second such company to be suspended - Norway's DNV was penalised last November for similar infractions."

While performing the obligatory spot check, UN inspectors found six irregularities in projects that SGS UK staffers vetted for approval. Although the firm has since corrected the errors, it will remain suspended until further notice from UN.

Continue reading "Carbon Offset Auditor Suspended Casting More Doubt on Offsets Market" »

cross posted from Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog

The Guardian has an interesting, though somewhat speculative, article today about emerging U.S. plans to propose an alternative international climate policy architecture to that embodied in the Kyoto Protocol:

The dispute between the US and Europe is over the way national carbon reduction targets would be counted. Europe has been pushing to retain structures and systems set up under the Kyoto protocol, the existing global treaty on climate change. US negotiators have told European counterparts that the Obama administration intends to sweep away almost all of the Kyoto architecture and replace it with a system of its own design.

The issue is highly sensitive and European officials are reluctant to be seen to openly criticise the Obama administration, which they acknowledge has engaged with climate change in a way that President Bush refused to. But they fear the US move could sink efforts to agree a robust new treaty in Copenhagen.

The US distanced itself from Kyoto under President Bush because it made no demands on China, and the treaty remains political poison in Washington. European negotiators knew the US would be reluctant to embrace Kyoto, but they hoped they would be able to use it as a foundation for a new agreement.

If Kyoto is scrapped, it could take several years to negotiate a replacement framework, the source added, a delay that could strike a terminal blow at efforts to prevent dangerous climate change. "In Europe we want to build on Kyoto, but the US proposal would in effect kill it off. If we have to start from scratch then it all takes time. It could be 2015 or 2016 before something is in place, who knows."

Energy Secretary Steven Chu had these interesting remarks as well:

The goal for the climate conference in Copenhagen is to reach a deal that can actually be implemented, rather than agreeing on binding high targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, US Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday in Vienna. The United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is calling for countries to make firm commitments to reduce emissions that cause global warming by 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels.

"Let's not make that one particular time the be-all and end-all, and if it doesn't happen, oh, we are doomed," Chu told reporters in Vienna, where he was attending the International Atomic Energy Agency's annual general conference.

Expect more trial balloons, pronouncements of negotiating doom and confusing reports in the months ahead.

The 1947 Marshall Plan seems to be referenced whenever it becomes clear that an overwhelming social problem can only be solved through large scale government spending. The results of the UN's World Economic and Social Survey 2009 (WESS) revealed the need for just that type of federal investment in order to manage the global climate and energy crisis. And, according to Reuters, the head of Development Policy and Analysis division at the UN department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), Richard Kozul-Wright, believes it may be time to call on the Marshall Plan framework, yet again, this time to fund a green new deal.

Regardless of past global policy, the UN's WESS enhances the climate debate leading up to the negotiations set to take place in Copenhagen this December, by pointing out the need for a global investment push in clean energy technology, energy efficiency, transportation, and forest-management. Thus far, much of the debate has centered on coercing developing nations to agree to carbon emissions targets - even as rich nations' carbon "commitments" skew towards symbolism over substance. But as WESS explains:

"[M]itigation and adaptation efforts can move forward effectively only if they are part of a consistent development strategy built around a massive investment-led transformation along low-carbon, high-growth paths."

That means giving up on Kyoto's tired call for empty promises to cut emissions. While reducing global carbon intensity was, and is, a primary goal of climate negotiations, targets are not only too narrow a focus to be a viable solution to the climate crisis, they have been shown to be ineffective. As has been explained by the Breakthrough Institute and most recently by Michael Levi, in Foreign Affairs, the Kyoto Protocol is failing because the too weak carbon emissions targets it set are not even being met by the participating countries.

Continue reading "UN Survey Says Massive Global Investment Needed to Fund Developing Clean Energy Economies" »

By Johanna Peace, Breakthrough Fellow

If there's anything that's certain as the world draws closer to December's climate summit in Copenhagen, now less than 100 days away, it's this: so-called binding carbon caps aren't working. That failed model--which has created an unproductive air of tension between developed and developing nations in climate negotiations to date--is why chances of reaching a successful and effective global agreement in Copenhagen are "vanishingly small," as Michael Levi, Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, states in the latest Foreign Affairs.

Levi writes:

"Americans accustomed to thinking about climate diplomacy within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol may assume that the obvious next step is to translate reduction goals into emissions caps, put them in a treaty, and establish a system for global carbon trading. But this would be problematic for three reasons."

Namely, any carbon caps are certain to be weak and insufficient (just look at the proposal currently being debated in Congress); compliance would be nearly impossible to monitor or verify; and a lack of punitive measures would mean countries could easily shirk on their promises without fear of consequences. In other words, the same reasons that Kyoto is failing now are certain to doom a newer climate deal that's predicated on the same idea.

Continue reading "Foreign Affairs: Policy, not Carbon Caps, for Success in Copenhagen" »

By Yael Borofsky, Breakthrough Fellow

Recognizing the need for a united stance on climate change in preparation for international negotiations in Copenhagen in December, ten African nations issued a joint draft resolution calling for "rich countries" to commit $67 billion per year in compensation for the deleterious effects of unmitigated climate change, according to a report in Reuters.

Africa, which houses 15 of the 20 most climate-change vulnerable countries, will almost certainly endure the most severe negative consequences of climate change, yet it contributes relatively little to the problem.

This new proposal arrives on the heels of a flurry of Copenhagen related news. The Financial Times reported yesterday that both China and India blame developed nations, such as the U.S., for impeding the progress of a climate treaty. As developing nations, they are demanding financial and technological assistance from the major historic contributors to climate change in order to mitigate the effects of a problem they are not primarily responsible for causing.

Continue reading "Can U.S. Meet Africa's Call for Annual $67 Bn in Adaptation Aid?" »

By Johanna Peace, Breakthrough Fellow

In New Delhi today, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that India must invest in both new and existing clean energy technologies in order to develop sustainably over the coming decades. This comes as the latest indication of India's progress on building a domestic clean energy economy through investment--a strategy that could also serve as a new approach to international climate policy. Unfortunately, Western nations that stall climate negotiations with their insistence on setting carbon caps continue to miss the world's best chance at forging a global agreement.

Continue reading "Indian Prime Minister Says India Must Invest in Clean Energy Technology" »

By Johanna Peace, Breakthrough Fellow

Here's the current climate stalemate: While US and EU negotiators keep pushing for an international treaty based on cutting emissions, developing nations like China and India keep refusing to adopt hard emissions caps. But according to a new report by the Center for Clean Air Policy, those emission caps are too hard to measure and monitor in developing nations, anyway. Instead, the report concludes, developing countries should adopt a new approach to increase efficiency in their most energy-intensive industries by setting measurable clean energy technology targets.

Dan Klein of CCAP, a co-author of the report, explained:

"To be able to say we're going to improve our emissions intensity by 5 percent, that's a nice concept. But to be able to actually do that means ... you have the ability to measure industrywide what you're doing now and what you're doing after."

On the other hand, "It's not such a difficult thing to count the number of plants that have a certain technology," Klein said.

Continue reading "New Report Recommends Technology Deployment Targets to Decarbonize Industry" »

A quick post this morning...

The global community should be investing $300 billion annually to combat global warming, according to UN climate chief Yvo de Boer (pictured). De Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change, says the world needs to be spending $100 billion annually to help vulnerable communities adapt to the impacts of climate change, and another $200 billion each year to shift the global energy mix away from fossil fuels.

"The world will need a phenomenal amount of money to change its energy supply from fossil fuels to cleaner sources and to adapt to climate change," de Boer said Friday.

Continue reading "UN Climate Chief: Global Community Needs to Invest $300b Annually in Climate Fight" »

By William Oman & Teryn Norris

Two new studies published last month -- one by the Office of Tony Blair and the Climate Group, the other by the Global Climate Network and Center for American Progress (CAP) -- strongly advocate a climate policy strategy based on direct government investment in energy technology development and deployment.

The studies independently reach conclusions similar to the Breakthrough Institute's and are yet another indication of "The Emerging Climate Consensus," which recognizes the limits of carbon pricing and advocates major increases in federal funding to deploy low-carbon energy technologies and drive down their costs through direct public investment in RD&D (research, development, and demonstration), deployment, and supporting infrastructure.

The Tony Blair and Climate Group report, titled "Breaking the Climate Deadlock: Technology for a Low Carbon Future (PDF)," provides a comprehensive sector-based analysis and concludes:

"Governments should adopt a strategic top-down approach to ensure that critical technologies arrive on time and provide investment in disruptive options to allow radical transformation in the future... The reality is that carbon pricing does not address many other market failures along the innovation chain."

The study argues that direct public support is crucial to develop and deploy new technologies: "Market failures along the innovation chain require public spending to drive technologies down their cost curve to a point where the carbon price can take over and accelerate their deployment." Echoing the Breakthrough Institute, International Energy Agency, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu (and defying critics like Joseph Romm), the report once again concludes that energy technologies must undergo major developments to meet emission reduction targets:

"Although we have the technologies we need through to 2020, new technologies -- many available but not yet commercially proven -- will be needed to meet the more challenging long-term goals. Therefore, at the same time as we deploy existing solutions, we must invest in future options."

Continue reading "Tony Blair, Climate Group, and CAP call for public investment and technology-centric climate policy" »

By Leigh Ewbank, Breakthrough Fellow

A joint London School of Economics / University of Oxford report published today presents a new approach to post-Kyoto climate change policy. The report, How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course, coincides with this week's G8 summit and Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, and calls on policy makers to abandon the failed Kyoto-style framework and instead focus directly on decarbonizing global energy systems.

The new report builds on Professor Gwyn Prins' and Professor Steve Rayner's influential critique of the Kyoto Protocol, The Wrong Trousers: Radically Rethinking Climate Policy, and adds further weight to calls to scrap Kyoto.

Continue reading "How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course: New Report Proposes Post-Kyoto Framework for Copenhagen" »

By Johanna Peace, with Leigh Ewbank and Devon Swezey, Breakthrough Fellows

Historically, the United States has been the nation with the capacity and determination for large-scale investments in promising new technologies--but not this time. Now it's China's turn. In the coming weeks, China will unveil an unprecedented multi-billion dollar investment in renewable energy.

The details are sketchy, but China is reportedly developing a massive renewable energy investment plan. While little is known about the precise level of expenditure the Chinese will commit to research, development and deployment (RD&D), if it's anywhere between the US $440-660 billion over ten years reported by AFP and the Center for American Progress then it'll be an unprecedented investment in the new energy economy.

What Do We Know About China's Investment Plan?

A Chinese Energy Administration official has confirmed that the investments will number at least $440 billion over 10 years. However, there is still uncertainty about the range of investments and the date when the Chinese Government's renewable energy plan will be revealed. A report by the state-run news service Xinhua identified China's top economic planning body, the National Development and Reform Commission, as responsible for drafting and implementing the plan. According to Shi Dinghuan of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, NDRC has already produced a draft of the renewable energy stimulus, though Breakthrough research has turned up no publicly available copy.

Continue reading "China's Big Plan to Win the Clean Energy Race" »

By Johanna Peace, Devon Swezey, and Leigh Ewbank, Breakthrough Fellows

It's official: India won't accept binding caps on its emissions of greenhouse gases. Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh made the case clear last Thursday:

"India will not accept any emission-reduction target--period," Ramesh said. "This is a non-negotiable stand."

India's announcement is the latest frustrating news for those following the efforts of climate negotiators as they struggle to eke out an international agreement by this December's UN summit in Copenhagen. It's frustrating because the fundamental dissonance between what developed countries demand and what developing countries are willing to give appears to be the single most intractable roadblock standing in the way of a successful treaty. In fact, this very problem has impeded progress on international climate negotiations for decades.

Continue reading "Road to Copenhagen: The Need for a New Framework" »