Cross-posted from Climatico 
… but doesn’t agree on when to turn down the heat. This is Oxfam’s resumé on the freshly released G8 climate change communiqué. Leaders could not improve on last year’s commitment of “a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050”. They did however agree that to reach such a global reduction, developed countries will have to reduce their emissions by 80% by 2050. There was no agreement on a specific year as a baseline, and the final wording - “compared to 1990 or more recent years” - reflects the disagreement between the EU who pushed for a 1990 baseline and the USA and Japan who want future emissions to be compared to a more recent reference year.
As hoped and expected, it was agreed, however, that “the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2°C.” This is the first time that the US has officially agreed to such a target, something that would have been unimaginable under George W. Bush. The Canadians were opposed to this statement earlier this week, but after long negotiations and NGO campaigns from the likes of Avaaz, Canada accepted the language.
Like last year, no interim goal has been agreed on, though the EU’s push for a 2020 goal is reflected in the statement that a 50% reduction by 2050 “implies that global emissions need to peak as soon as possible and decline thereafter”. This lack of an interim target does not sit well with a 2°C target as Kim Carstensen, leader of the WWF Global Climate Initiative, puts it: “What are [world leaders] going to do between now and 2020? If they don’t outline a path to reach the announced goal, the 2 degree statement will just join a long list of broken promises.”
In the short term, they will be working on their economic recovery. The deterioration of the economic climate is noticeable throughout the document. Yet, positively, the trend to “green” individual stimulus packages (at least rhetorically) has been picked up in the communiqué: “We must seize the opportunity to build on synergies between actions to combat climate change and economic recovery initiatives, and encourage growth and sustainable development worldwide.”
For those interested in adaptation and forestry, the document seems to have something on offer. The document mentions the “possible security implications of the adverse impact of climate change and the potential for increased conflicts over scarcer resources.” It goes on to discuss not only deforestation but also land degradation and the importance of biodiversity.
The bottom line is that apart from the lack of interim targets, most NGOs and other observers agree that the communique is adequate. Or as John Kirton, of the G8 Research Group, put it - “It met my standards.”
The G8 leaders will now take this communique to the Major Economies Forum tomorrow. There Obama will chair a difficult meeting in which he will attempt to reverse China and India’s longstanding opposition to adopting quantitative emissions targets.
By Ruth Brandt, Niel Bowerman and Marie Karaisl
Cross-posted from Climatico.
In a much-anticipated vote on Capitol Hill today, The House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, which lays the foundations for a cap-and-trade system in the US. The vote was narrowly passed with 219 for and 212 against.
In the run up to the vote today some pundits said that the vote would pass, while others said it would fail. Conventional wisdom, however, suggests that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not have put it to a floor vote unless she knew she had the votes in the bag. In a vote this tight, those that fall on the dividing line can have a disproportionally-large influence on the Bill. This phenomenon was well illustrated by the extra 0.25% of permits that were allocated to refineries at the last minute in order to win over Rep. Harry Teague.
The reception has been mixed in the US, with House Republican leader John Boehner calling it “the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives.” On the other hand the response internationally has been largely positive. In a meeting with Obama earlier today, German Chancellor Angela Merkel praised the bill: “This is, indeed, a sea change that I see [...] this really points to the fact that the United States are very serious on climate.” Although the bill has been widely supported by environmental groups, some say it does not go far enough.
The vote today does not guaruntee the passage of the bill into law, as it must first face the daunting task of passing the Senate. Nonetheless, Obama’s victory today gives him some important extra cards to play in the run up to the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.
Tags: American Clean Energy and Security Act, Angela Merkel, Climate Bill, Harry Teague, House of Representatives, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Waxman-Markey
Climate Change, Climatico, Politics, USA | Niel Bowerman | 
27 June 2009 00:53 | 
Comments (1)
Obama’s weekly address on Saturday:
“I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:
“So am I.”
Wow! The battle is on. NGOs are mobilising to get this passed, while lobbyists are stepping in to stall the budget. This is from MoveOn.org’s latest campaign. Unfortunately they don’t have it online yet so I’ll post it in full here…
10 things you should know about Obama’s plan (but probably don’t)
The plan:
Makes a $634 billion down payment on fixing health care that will go a long way toward paying for a more efficient, more affordable health care system that covers every single American. [source]
Reduces taxes for 95% of working Americans. And if your family makes less than $250,000, your taxes won’t go up one dime. [source]
Invests more than $100 billion in clean energy technology, creating millions of green jobs that can never be outsourced.[source]
Brings our troops home from Iraq on a firm timetable, finally bringing the war to a close—and freeing up almost ten billion dollars a month for domestic priorities. [source]
Reverses growing income inequality. The plan lets the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire and focuses on strengthening the middle class. [source]
Closes multi-billion-dollar tax loopholes for big oil companies. [source]
Increases grants to help families pay for college—the largest increase ever. [source]
Halves the deficit by 2013. President Obama inherited a legacy of huge deficits and an economy in shambles, but his plan brings the deficit under control as soon as the economy begins to recover. [source]
Dramatically increases funding for the SEC and the CFTC—the agencies that police Wall Street. [source]
Tells it straight. For years, budgets have used accounting tricks to hide the real costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, and too many other programs. Obama’s budget gets rid of the smokescreens and lays out what America’s priorities are, what they cost, and how we’re going to pay for them. [source]
This is the change we voted for. President Obama has done his part, now we need to do ours.
And of course, not mentioned here is the cap-and-trade mechanism that has also been included in the budget. I’m glad Obama is making good use of his 100-day honeymoon!
This is from the NYT yesterday. If Senator Boxer et al. manage to include a cap-and-trade scheme in the budget, I’ll be very impressed.
As part of his budget blueprint submitted to Congress today, Obama included almost $645 billion in assumed revenue by 2019 for a new cap-and-trade program.
Senator Inhofe sounds pretty angry, calling the idea “liberal arrogance”… Let the battle commence!
Tags: Boxer, Budget, climate, Congress, filibuster, Inhofe, liberal arrogance, NYT, Obama
Climate Change, Obama, Politics, USA | Niel Bowerman | 27 February 2009 16:04 | Comments (0)
What Kind of Change? Obama's Climate Policy in 2009
To honour the fact that we now have a new and talented President of the United States of America, I co-authored a report on Obama’s 2009 climate policy strategy for Climatico.
I was very impressed by Obama’s Inauguration speech. It marked a significant change from his campaign speeches when he would use his prowess in public speaking to whip the crowd into a frenzy. This was a more measured and intelligent speech, addressing both the challenges ahead and the immense possibility for change that has emerged out of this hardship.
Some of my favourite lines in his speech addressed climate change in a way that no previous president has ever discussed the issue.
“Each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.”
“We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.”
“And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.”
“Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter”
Finally a president that ‘gets it’ on energy and climate change. Good luck to him!
Subscribe