Environmental Law Prof Blog

Worldwatch Hit on Exxon Mobil

I was disappointed to read Worldwatch Institute's story on Exxon Mobil.WWI story   The story relies largely on the Guardian's version of facts and evidently took no heed of Cohen's refusal to condone further climate science shopping, Exxon/Mobil's response, or AEI's response.  Let's get it right -- so that folks like ExxonMobil will take us seriously.

Follow the Bouncing Global Warming Legislation Ball

Here's a copy of the CRS report on current global warming legislation:

Climate Change: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Bills in the 110th Congress

Introduction

Climate change is generally viewed as a global issue, but proposed responses generally require action at the national level. In 1992, the United States ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which called on industrialized countries to take the lead in reducing the six primary greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000.  For more than a decade, a variety of voluntary and regulatory actions have been proposed or undertaken in the United States, including monitoring of power plant carbon dioxide emissions, improved appliance efficiency, and incentives for developing renewable energy sources. However, carbon dioxide emissions have continued to increase.  In 2001, President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol, which called for legally binding commitments by developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.  He also rejected the concept of mandatory emissions reductions. Since then, the Administration has focused U.S. climate change policy on voluntary initiatives to reduce the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, in 2005, the Senate passed a Sense of the Senate resolution on climate change declaring that a mandatory, market-based program to slow, stop, and reverse the growth of greenhouse gases should be enacted at a rate and in a manner that "will not significantly harm the United States economy and will encourage comparable action by other nations. A number of congressional proposals to advance programs designed to reduce greenhouse gases have been introduced in the 110th Congress. These have generally followed one of three tracks. The first is to improve the monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions to provide a basis for research and development and for any potential future reduction scheme. The second is to enact a market-oriented greenhouse gas reduction program along the lines of the trading provisions of the current acid rain reduction program established by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The third is to enact energy and related programs that would have the added effect of reducing greenhouse gases; an example would be a requirement that electricity producers generate a portion of their electricity from renewable resources (a renewable portfolio standard). This report focuses on the second category of bills. Proposed Legislation in 110th Congress In the 110th Congress, four bills have been introduced that would impose controls on emissions of greenhouse gases. A comparison of major provisions is provided in Appendix 1 S. 280, introduced by Senator Lieberman, would cap emissions of the six greenhouse gases specified in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, at reduced levels, from the electric generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial sectors -- sectors that account for about 85% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The reductions would be implemented in four phases, with an emissions cap in 2012 based on the affected facilities' 2004 emissions (for an entity that has a single unit that emits more than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent); the cap steadily declines until it is equal to one-third of the facilities' 2004 levels. The program would be implemented through an expansive allowance trading program to maximize opportunities for cost-effective reductions, and credits obtained from increases in carbon sequestration, reductions from non-covered sources, and acquisition of allowances from foreign sources could be used to comply with 30% of reduction requirements. The bill also contains an extensive new infrastructure to encourage innovation and new technologies. S. 309, introduced by Senator Sanders, would cap greenhouse gas emissions on an economy-wide basis beginning in 2010. Beginning in 2020, the country's emissions would be capped at their 1990 levels, and then proceed to decline steadily until they were reduced to 20% of their 1990 levels in the year 2050. The EPA has the discretion to employ a market-based allowance trading program or any combination of cost-effective emission reduction strategies. The bill also includes new mandatory greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles and new powerplants, along with a new energy efficiency performance standard. The bill would establish a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and a new low-carbon generation requirement and trading program. S. 317, introduced by Senator Feinstein, would cap greenhouse gas emissions from electric generators over 25 megawatts. Beginning in 2011, affected generators would be capped at their 2006 levels, declining to 2001 levels by 2015. After that, the emission cap would decline 1% annually until 2020, when the rate of decline would increase to 1.5%. The allowance trading program includes an allocation scheme that provides for an increasing percentage of all allowances to be auctioned, with 100% auctioning in 2036 and thereafter. The cap-and-trade program allows some of an entity's reduction requirement to be meet with credits obtained from foreign sources and a variety of other activities specified in the bill. H.R. 620, introduced by Representative Olver, is a substantially modified version of S. 280. Using the same basic structure as S. 280, the emission caps under H.R. 620 are more stringent. Reductions from affected sectors (electric generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial) would be set at 2004 levels in 2012 and then steadily decline until the cap is equal to about one-fourth of facilities' 2004 levels. Although H.R. 620 permits affected entities to comply with the reduction requirements with credits from foreign sources, sequestration, and reductions from non-covered entities, these sources are limited to 15% of the source's reduction requirement.

Appendix 1.

Comparison of Key Provisions of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Bills

Topic	S. 280 (Lieberman)	S. 309 (Sanders)	S. 317 (Feinstein)	H.R. 620 (Olver)
Emission reduction/ limitation scheme	Absolute cap on total emissions from all covered entities in the electric power, transportation, industry, and commercial sectors.	Absolute cap on total emissions economy-wide.	Absolute cap on total emissions from covered electric generators.	Absolute cap on total emissions from all covered entities in the electric power, transportation, industry, and commercial sectors.
Specific emissions limits	Beginning in 2012, emissions from covered entities are capped at 6.13 billion metric tons, minus 2012 emissions from non-covered entities. Beginning in 2020, emission cap declines to 5.239 billion metric tons, minus 2020 emissions from non-covered entities. Beginning in 2030, emission cap declines to 4.1billion metric tons, minus 2030 emissions from non-covered entities. Beginning in 2050, emission cap further declines to 2.096 billion metric tons, minus annual emissions from non-covered entities.	Beginning in 2010, emissions economy-wide to be reduced 2% annually. Beginning in 2020, emission cap on economy-wide basis set at 1990 level, with declining emission caps of 26.7% below 1990 levels in 2030 and 53.3% in 2040. Beginning in 2050, emission cap set at 80% below 1990 levels.	Beginning in 2011, emissions from affected electric generators capped at 2006 levels. Beginning in 2015, emissions from affected electric generators capped at their 2001 levels, declining 1% annually until 2020. Beginning in 2020, emission cap declines 1.5% annually.	Beginning in 2012, emissions from covered entities are capped at 6.15 billion metric tons, minus 2012 emissions from non-covered entities. Beginning in 2020, emission cap declines to 5.232 billion metric tons, minus 2020 emissions from non-covered entities. Beginning in 2030, emission cap declines to 3.858 billion metric tons, minus 2030 emissions from non-covered entities. Beginning in 2050, emission cap further declines to 1.504 billion metric tons, minus annual emissions from non-covered entities.
Greenhouse gases defined	Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).	Same six gases as S. 280.	Same six gases as S. 280.	Same six gases as S. 280.
Covered entities	In metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents: any electric power, industrial, or commercial entity that emits over 10,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent annually from any single facility owned by the entity; any refiner or importer of petroleum products for transportation use that, when combusted, will emit over 10,000 metric tons annually; and any importer or producer of HFCs, PFCs, or SF6 that, when used, will emit over 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.	EPA promulgates rule within two years of enactment that applies the most cost-effective reduction options on sources or sectors to achieve reduction goals.	Any fossil fuel-fired electric generating facility that has a capacity of greater than 25 megawatts and generates electricity for sale, including cogeneration and government-owned facilities.	In metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents: any electric power, industrial, or commercial entity that emits over 10,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent annually from any single facility owned by the entity; any refiner or importer of petroleum products for transportation use that, when combusted, will emit over 10,000 metric tons annually; and any importer or producer of HFCs, PFCs, or SF6 that, when used, will emit over 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Responsible agency	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).	Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
General allocating and implementing strategy	A tradeable allowance system is established: EPA shall determine allocations based on several economic, equity, and sector-specific criteria, including economic efficiency, competitive effects, and impact on consumers. Allowances are to be allocated upstream to refiners and importers of transportation fuel, along with producers of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, and downstream to electric generation, industrial, and commercial entities. Allocations to covered entities are provided at no cost.	Tradeable allowance system permitted. In implementing reduction program, EPA shall select the most cost-effective emission reduction strategies. EPA shall allocate to various sectors and interests any allowances that are not allocated to affected entities, including households, dislocated workers, energy efficiency and renewable energy activities, sequestration activities, and ecosystem protection activities.	Tradeable allowance system is established. Allocations to existing sources based on historic electricity output, and includes allowance allocations for incremental nuclear capacity and renewable energy, along with sequestration and early action provisions. From 2011 on, an increasing percentage of all allowances are to be auctioned, with 100% of allowances auctioned in 2036 and thereafter.	A tradeable allowance system is established: EPA shall determine allocations based on several economic, equity, and sector-specific criteria, including economic efficiency, competitive effects, and impact on consumers. Allowances are to be allocated upstream to refiners and importers of transportation fuel, along with producers of HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, and downstream to electric generation, industrial, and commercial entities. Allocations to covered entities are provided at no cost.
Public sale/auction of allowances	EPA shall determine the number of allowances allocated to the Climate Change Credit Corporation (CCCC) (established by the bill). EPA shall allocate to the CCCC allowances before 2012 to auction to raise revenue for technology deployment and dissemination. The CCCC may buy and sell allowances, and use the proceeds to reduce costs borne by consumers and other purposes. (See “Revenue recycling” below.)	EPA may choose to provide for trustees to sell allowances for the benefit of entities eligible to receive assistance under the proposal (see above).	From 2011 on, an increasing percentage of all allowances are to be auctioned, with 100% of allowances auctioned in 2036 and thereafter. Revenues from the auction are to be deposited in the Climate Action Trust Fund created by the Department of the Treasury.	EPA shall determine the number of allowances allocated to the Climate Change Credit Corporation (CCCC) (established by the bill). The CCCC may buy and sell allowances, and use the proceeds to reduce costs borne by consumers and other purposes. (See “Revenue recycling” below.)
Cost-limiting safety valve	No explicit provision.	No explicit provision. However, if the President determines a national security emergency exists, the President may temporarily adjust, suspend, or waive any regulation promulgated under this program (subject to judicial review).	No explicit provision. However, limited borrowing against future reductions is permitted if EPA determines allowance prices have reached and sustained a level that is or will cause significant harm to the U.S. economy. Also, EPA may increase to 50% the share of international credits that can be used in such cases.	No explicit provision.
Other market trading system features	Up to 30% of required reductions may be achieved through credits obtained through pre-certified international emissions trading programs, approved reduction projects in developing countries, domestic carbon sequestration, and reductions from non-covered entities. Borrowing against future reductions is permitted.	Market trading systems incorporated into Renewable Portfolio Standard and new low-carbon generation requirement.	Up to 25% (50% for new affected units) of required reductions may be achieved with credits obtained through EPA-approved foreign government programs developed under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) protocols. Limited borrowing against future reductions is permitted if EPA determines allowance prices have reached and sustained a level that is causing or will cause significant harm to the U.S. economy. Also, EPA may increase to 50% the share of international credits that can be used in such cases.	Up to 15% of required reductions may be achieved through credits obtained through pre-certified international emissions trading programs, approved reduction projects in developing countries, domestic carbon sequestration, and reductions from non-covered entities. Borrowing against future reductions is permitted.
Banking	Banking of allowances is permitted; allowances may be saved for use in future years.	No specific prohibition on banking.	Banking of allowances is permitted; allowances may be saved for use in future years.	Banking of allowances is permitted; allowances may be saved for use in future years.
Early reduction credits and bonus credits	Entities with registered emission reductions achieved before 2012 may receive allowances for them, including reductions achieved under more stringent mandatory state programs. For the time period 2012-2017, entities that have entered into an agreement with EPA to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2012 are entitled to additional allowances to cover their additional reductions and are allowed to achieve 40% of their reduction requirement (as opposed to 30%; see above) through international emissions trading and projects, sequestration, or reductions by non-covered entities.	Reductions previously achieved under state programs that are at least as stringent as a federal trading program may be recognized by the federal program. Entities that demonstrate reductions achieved early (but not before 1992) that are as verifiable as reductions under a federal trading program may be recognized by the federal program.	Entities with reductions achieved from 2000 through 2010 shall receive credits under specific criteria, including EPA rules that ensure reductions are real, additional, verifiable, enforceable, and permanent, and that they were reported under either 1605(b) of the 1992 Energy Policy Act, or according to a state or regional registry. Quantity of credits given is limited to 10% of the 2011 allowance allocation.	Entities with registered emission reductions achieved before 2012 may receive allowances for them. For the time period 2012-2017, entities that have entered into an agreement with EPA to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2012 are entitled to additional allowances to cover their additional reductions and are allowed to achieve 35% of their reduction requirement (as opposed to 15%; see above) through international emissions trading and projects, sequestration, or reductions by non-covered entities.
Revenue recycling	Revenues generated by allowance auctions and trading proceeds are received by a new Climate Change Credit Corporation (CCCC). Activities to be funded include mechanisms to reduce consumer costs and to assist dislocated workers, low-income persons, and affected communities, along with programs to encourage deployment of new technology and wildlife restoration. Allocations to the CCCC are to be determined by EPA based on the funding needs of the advanced technologies demonstration and deployment programs. Further, at least 50% of revenue received must be used for technology deployment.	Allowances may be allocated by EPA to households, dislocated workers, energy efficiency and renewable energy activities, sequestration activities, and ecosystem protection activities.	Revenues generated from the auction are to be deposited in the Climate Action Trust Fund created by the Department of the Treasury. Activities to be funded include an Innovative Low-and Zero-emitting Carbon Technologies Program, a Clean Coal Technologies Program, and an Energy Efficiency Technology Program, along with research and development. Adaption and mitigation activities to be funded include affected workers and communities, and fish and wildlife habitat.	Revenues generated by allowance auctions and trading proceeds are received by a new Climate Change Credit Corporation (CCCC). Activities to be funded include mechanisms to reduce consumer costs and to assist dislocated workers and affected communities, along with programs to encourage deployment of new technology and wildlife restoration.
Penalty for non-compliance	Excess emission penalties are equal to three times the market price for allowances on the last day of the year at issue.	Existing enforcement provisions of Section 113 of the Clean Air Act are extended to program.	$100 per excess ton indexed to inflation plus a 1.3 to 1 offset from future emissions allowances. If the market price for an allowance exceeds $60, the penalty is $200 per excess ton, adjusted for inflation.	Excess emission penalties are equal to three times the market price for allowances on the last day of the year at issue.
Other key provisions	Provisions include studies of research on abrupt climate change and impact of climate change on the world's poor, among others, and creation of a national greenhouse gas database. A new Innovation Infrastructure is created, along with program initiatives to promote less carbon-intensive technology, adaption, sequestration, and related activities. Requires periodic review of target adequacy by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.	Provisions include mandatory greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles by 2010, for new electric powerplants that begin operation after December 31, 2011, and a new energy efficiency performance standard. Establishes a Renewable Portfolio Standard and credit program. Establishes a new low-carbon generation requirement and trading program. Requires periodic review of target adequacy by the National Academy of Sciences.	Establishes program to encourage offsets from the agricultural sector. Offset credits available for agricultural, forestry, grazing, and wetlands management, sequestration projects, or practices that meet specific criteria in the proposal. Offset credits also available for approved emission reduction offset projects from a variety of activities listed in the proposal. Requires periodic review of target adequacy by EPA taking into account the recommendations of a newly established Climate Science Advisory Panel.	Provisions include studies of the impact of climate change on coastal ecosystems and communities, and the world's poor, among others; assessment of adaptation technologies; and creation of a national greenhouse gas database. Requires periodic review of target adequacy by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.

Appendix 2. Common Terms

Allocation schemes (upstream and downstream). Regulatory approaches to allocating allowances (as opposed to auction schemes) can choose different points and participants along the production process to assign allowances and the resulting compliance responsibility. Upstream allocation schemes establish emission caps and assign allowances at a production, importation, or distribution point of products that will eventually produce greenhouse emissions further down the production process. For example, in the natural gas sector, emission caps could be established and allowances assigned at processing facilities where facilities and participants shrink from about 400,000 wells and 8,000 companies to 500 plants and 200 companies. In contrast, downstream allocation schemes establish emission caps and assign allowances at the point in the process where the emissions are emitted. In the case of the natural gas industry, to achieve the same coverage as the upstream scheme, this would involve assigning allowances to natural gas-fired electric generators, industry, and even residential users. Thus, some downstream proposals choose either to exempt certain sectors (such as residential use) from a cap-and-trade program or to employ a hybrid allocation scheme where some of the allowances are allocated upstream and others downstream (such as the electric generators).  

Allowance. An allowance is generally defined as a limited authorization by the government to emit 1 ton of pollutant. In the case of greenhouse gases, an allowance generally refers to a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. Although used generically, an allowance is technically different from a credit. A credit represents a ton of pollutant that an entity has reduced in excess of its legal requirement. However, the terms tend to be used interchangeably, along with others, such as permits.  

Auctions. Auctions can be used in market-based pollution control schemes in several different ways. For example, Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments uses an annual auction to ensure the liquidity of the credit trading program. For this purpose, a small percentage of the credits permitted under the program are auctioned annually, with the proceeds returned to the entities that would have otherwise received them. Private parties are also allowed to participate. A second possibility is to use an auction to raise revenues for a related (or unrelated) program. For example, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is exploring an auction to implement its public benefit program to assist consumers or pursue strategic energy purposes. A third possibility is to use auctions as a means of allocating some, or all, of the credits mandated under a GHG control program. Obviously, the impact that an auction would have on cost would depend on how extensively it was used in any GHG control program, and to what purpose the revenues were expended.  

Banking. Although allowances are generally allocated on an annual basis, most cap-and-trade programs do not require participants to either use the allowance that year or else lose it. Under many proposals, allowances can be banked by the receiving participant (or traded to another participant who can use or bank it) to be used or traded in a future year. Banking reduces the absolute cost of compliance by making annual emission caps flexible over time. The limited ability to shift the reduction requirement across time allows affected entities to better accommodate corporate planning for capital turnover, allow for technological progress, control equipment construction schedules, and respond to transient events such as weather and economic shocks.  

Bubble. A bubble is a regulatory device that permits two or more sources of pollutants to be treated as one for the purposes of emission compliance.  

Cap-and-trade program. A cap-and-trade program is based on two premises. First, a set amount of pollutant emitted by human activities can be assimilated by the ecological system without undue harm. Thus, the goal of the cap-and-trade program is to impose a ceiling (i.e., an emissions cap) on the total emissions of that pollutant at a level below the assimilative capacity. Second, a market in pollution licenses (i.e., allowances) between polluters is the most cost-effective means of reducing emissions to the level of the cap. This market in allowances is designed so that owners of allowances can trade those allowances with other emitters who need them or retain (bank) them for future use or sale. In the case of the sulfur dioxide program contained in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, most allowances were allocated free by the federal government to utilities according to statutory formulas related to a given facility's historic fuel use and emissions; other allowances have been reserved by the government for periodic auctions to ensure market liquidity.  

Carbon tax. A carbon tax is generally conceived as a levy on natural gas, petroleum, and coal according to their carbon content, in the approximate ratio of 0.6 to 0.8 to 1, respectively. However, proposals have been made to impose the tax downstream of the production process when the carbon dioxide is actually released to the atmosphere. In contrast to a cap-and-trade program, in which the quantity of emissions is limited and the price is determined by an allowance marketplace, with a carbon tax, the price is limited and the quantity of emissions is determined by the participants based on the cost of control versus the cost of the tax.  

Coverage. Coverage is the breadth of economic sectors covered by a particular greenhouse gas reduction program.  

Emissions cap. A mandated limit on how much pollutant (or greenhouse gases) an affected entity can release to the atmosphere. Caps can be either an absolute cap, where the amount is specified in terms of tons of emissions on an annual basis, or a rate-based cap, where the amount of emissions produced per unit of output (such as electricity) is specified but not the absolute amount released. Caps may be imposed on an entity, sector, or economy-wide basis.  

Generation performance standard (GPS). Also called an output-based allocation, allowances are allocated gratis to entities in proportion to their relative share of total electricity generation in a recent year.  

Grandfathering. Grandfathering generally refers an allocation scheme in which allowances are distributed to affected entities on the basis of historic emissions. These allowances are generally distributed free-of-charge by the government to the affected entities. Grandfathering can also refer to entities that because of age or because they have met an earlier standard, or other factors, are exempted from a new regulatory requirement.  

Greenhouse gases. The six gases recognized under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄) nitrous oxide (N₂O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), and perfluorocarbons (PFC).  

"No regrets" policy. A "no regrets" policy is one of establishing programs for other purposes that would have concomitant greenhouse gas reductions. Therefore, only those policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions at no cost are considered.  

Offsets. Offsets generally refer to emission credits achieved by activities not directly related to the emissions of an affected source. Examples of offsets would include forestry and agricultural activities that absorb carbon dioxide, and reduction achieved by entities that are not regulated by a greenhouse gas reduction program.  

Revenue recycling. Some greenhouse gas reduction programs create revenues through auctions, compliance penalties, or imposition of a carbon tax. Revenue recycling refers to how a program disposes of those revenues. How a program handles revenues received can have a significant effect on the overall cost of the program to the economy.  

Safety valve. Devices designed to prevent or to respond to unacceptably high compliance costs for greenhouse gas reductions. Generally triggered by prices in the allowance markets, safety valve approaches can include (1) a set price alternative to making reductions or buying allowances at the market price, (2) a slowdown in tightening the emissions cap, and (3) lengthening of the time allowed for compliance. Depending on the interplay between the emissions cap and safety valve and actual compliance costs, a safety valve can affect the integrity of the emissions cap.  

Sequestration. Sequestration is the process of capturing carbon dioxide from emission streams or from the atmosphere and then storing it in such a way as to prevent its release to the atmosphere.

________________________________________

¹ Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), those gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Some greenhouse gases are controlled under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and are not covered under UNFCCC. 

² For further information, see CRS Report RL30692, Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol, by Susan R. Fletcher. 

³ S.Amdt. 866, passed by voice vote after a motion to table failed 43-54, June 22, 2005.

 

Congress and Global Warming

National Journal reports in a poll of their congressional "insiders" that 95% of the Democrats and only 13% of the Republicans believe its been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming is caused by manmade problems.  This poll proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the National Journal doesn't know how to ask an intelligent question. congress on global warming  The poll contains more interesting information on preferred policy alternatives.

Ecological Restoration

Trying to keep on top of developments in ecological restoration.
Consider:

2nd National Conference on Ecosystem Restoration
April 23-27, 2007
Kansas City, Missouri

NCER features more than 250 speakers and 200 poster presentations covering the latest in ecosystem restoration issues we're facing across the country. The conference also entails several special sessions, including Restoration Coffee Houses to promote dialogue amongst attendees, as well as plenary presentations on the 2007 Farm Bill as a Potential Tool for Ecosystem Restoration, Mississippi River Basin Restoration, Partnering for Sustainable Success, and Priorities and Measures for Restoration plus sessions on ecosystem design & implementation, restorations efforts in San Francisco area, and a panel session on balancing economic development & environmental quality
Conference Registration and Information

Rapanos ripples

Perhaps the distinction between the plurality opinion and Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Rapanos may not matter:

Newslink report:
Simsbury-Avon Preservation Soc., LLC v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc., (D.Conn.) In deciding whether a pond located on a gun club's property constituted "navigable waters" of the United States under the Clean Water Act (CWA), a district court considered both the test established by the plurality in Rapanos v. U.S., and the test established by Justice Kennedy's concurrence in that case. The pond did not constitute "navigable waters" under the plurality's test, since any surface connection between the pond and a river was not continuous. Nor did it constitute "navigable waters" under Justice Kennedy's test, since data from testing was inconclusive as to the effect of lead from the shooting range on the river.

Drink Water for Life Challenge

As readers know, the royalties of this blog are now devoted to international NGOs providing safe, clean drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene education.

The 7th Millennium Development Goal seeks to cut in half the number of people without those essentials by 2015. Current estimates are that it will cost about $16 billion additional per year until 2015 to accomplish that goal.  I find it unbelievable that we cannot globally achieve that goal, especially when unnecessary deaths from water-borne diseases exceed 2 million, mostly children, each year.  That's one child every 15 seconds.

For those of you who are members of faith-based communities, I suggest that you sponsor a DRINK WATER FOR LIFE challenge associated with your congregation.  Drink water instead of lattes (sodas, bottled water, coffee, alcohol).  Do it for Lent (or your appropriate analogous spiritual break).  Get your friends, your synagogue or church, school or workplace to do the same.  Collect the money you save, gather it together on  Easter (or whatever date makes sense in your faith tradition), put it in a Water Fund, and send it to one of the organizations that do this work.  With just $5000, an entire village of 200 - 500 people can be supplied with safe, clean, sustainable drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene education. 

If you need addresses of faith-based organization who do this work, or secular charitable organizations who do this work, let me know.  If you need flyers explaining the problem, let me know.  Together we can make a difference.

EU Seeks to Lead World Climate Policy by Committing to a Unilateral Cut of 20% by 2020 and Supporting an International Agreement for 30% by 2020

Last month, the European Commission proposed a comprehensive package of measures to establish a new Energy Policy for Europe to combat climate change and boost the EU's energy security and competitiveness. The proposal set ambitious targets on greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy, creates a true internal market for energy, and strengthens energy regulation. The Commission supports an international agreement on climate change of a 30% cut in emissions from developed countries by 2020. Underscoring that commitment, the Commission proposes that the European Union commit now to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020, in particular through energy measures.

According to the Commission:

Europe faces real challenges. There is a more than 50% chance that global temperatures will rise during this century by more than 5°C. On current projections, energy and transport policies would mean that rather than falling, EU emissions would increase by around 5% by 2030. With current trends and policies the EU's energy import dependence will jump from 50% of total EU energy consumption today to 65% in 2030. In addition, the internal energy market remains incomplete which prevents EU citizens and the EU economy from receiving the full benefits of energy liberalisation.

The three "central pillars" of the proposal are described by the Commission as follows:

1. A true Internal Energy Market

The aim is to give real choice for EU energy users, whether citizens or businesses, and to trigger the huge investments needed in energy. The single market is good not just for competitiveness, but also sustainability and security.

The competition sector enquiry (see IP/07/26) and the internal market communication show that further action is required to deliver these aims through a clearer separation of energy production from energy distribution. It also calls for stronger independent regulatory control, taking into account the European market, as well as national measures to deliver on the European Union's target of 10% minimum interconnection levels, by identifying key bottlenecks and appointing coordinators.

2. Accelerating the shift to low carbon energy

The Commission proposes to maintain the EU's position as a world leader in renewable energy, by proposing a binding target of 20% of its overall energy mix will be sourced from renewable energy by 2020. This will require a massive growth in all three renewable energy sectors: electricity, biofuels and heating and cooling. This renewables target will be supplemented by a minimum target for biofuels of 10%. In addition, a 2007 renewables legislative package will include specific measures to facilitate the market penetration of both biofuels and heating and cooling.

Research is also crucial to lower the cost of clean energy and to put EU industry at the forefront of the rapidly growing low carbon technology sector. To meet these objectives, the Commission will propose a strategic European Energy Technology Plan. The European Union will also increase by at least 50% its annual spending on energy research for the next seven years.

At present, nuclear electricity makes up 14% of EU energy consumption and 30% of EU electricity. The Commission proposals underline that it is for each member state to decide whether or not to rely on nuclear electricity. The Commission recommends that where the level of nuclear energy reduces in the EU this must be offset by the introduction of other low-carbon energy sources otherwise the objective of cutting greenhouse gas emissions will become even more challenging.

3. Energy efficiency

The Commission reiterates the objective of saving 20% of total primary energy consumption by 2020. If successful, this would mean that by 2020 the EU would use approximately 13% less energy than today, saving 100 billion euro and around 780 tonnes of CO2 each year.

The Commission proposes that the use of fuel efficient vehicles for transport is accelerated; tougher standards and better labelling on appliances; improved energy performance of the EU's existing buildings and improved efficiency of heat and electricity generation, transmission and distribution. The Commission also proposes a new international agreement on energy efficiency.

The proposals centred on these three pillars will need to be underpinned by a coherent and credible external policy

An international Energy Policy where the EU speaks with one voice

The European Union cannot achieve its energy and climate change objectives on its own. It needs to work with both developed and developing countries and energy consumers and producers.  The European Union will develop effective solidarity mechanisms to deal with any energy supply crisis and actively develop a common external energy policy to increasingly "speak with one voice" with third countries. It will endeavour to develop real energy partnerships with suppliers based on transparency, predictability and reciprocity. 

Drawing on the consultation process on its Green Paper issued in 2006, the Commission has already made progress towards a more coherent external energy policy as demonstrated by the creation of a network of energy security correspondents. The Commission proposes a whole series of concrete measures to strengthen international agreements including the Energy Charter Treaty, post-Kyoto climate regime and extension of emissions trading to global partners and further extend bilateral agreements with third countries so that energy becomes an integral part of all external EU relations and especially of the European Neighbourhood Policy. As major new initiatives the Commission proposes to develop a comprehensive Africa-Europe partnership and an international agreement on energy efficiency.

Concrete action is required urgently. Taken together, the sector enquiry, strategic review and action plan represent the core of a proposed new European Energy Policy. This process seeks to move from principles into concrete legislative proposals. The Commission will seek endorsement of the energy and climate change proposals during the Spring European Council and will come forward with legislation in light of these discussions.

All the documents can be found at the following addresses:

http://europa.eu/press_room/presspacks/energy/index_en.htm

Behavioral Economics and Climate Change Policy

Here's a new paper from John Gowdy that is a useful tonic to more traditional neoclassical economic perspective popular among many policy analysts. Behavioral_economics_and_climate_change_policy.pdf

 

Abstract: The policy recommendations of most economists are based on the rational actor model of human behavior. Behavior is assumed to be self-regarding, preferences are assumed to be stable, and decisions are assumed to be unaffected by social context or frame of reference. The related fields of behavioral economics, game theory, and neuroscience have confirmed that human behavior is other regarding, and that people exhibit systematic patterns of decision-making that are "irrational" according to the standard behavioral model. This paper takes the position that it is these "irrational" patterns of behavior that uniquely define human decision making and that effective economic policies must take these behaviors as the starting point. This argument is supported by game theory experiments involving humans, closely related primates, and other animals with more limited cognitive ability. The policy focus of the paper is global climate change. The research surveyed in this paper suggests that the standard economic approach to climate change policy, with its almost exclusive emphasis on rational responses to monetary incentives, is seriously flawed. In fact, monetary incentives may actually be counter-productive. Humans are unique among animal species in their ability to cooperate across cultures, geographical space and generations. Tapping into this uniquely human attribute, and understanding how cooperation is enforced, holds the key to limiting the potentially calamitous effects of global climate change.

Global Climate Change Summit

Brookings scholar William Antholis is pushing UN Director General Ban's idea of a global climate change summit, especially a head of state level meeting.  From the White House's background documents supporting Bush's State of the Union comments, the Bush administration still seems unlikely to play a constructive role in world discussion -- particularly if we are talking about Bush personally attending a head of state meeting.  Ethanol is not the answer -- although it, like gas, can play a bit role as transition energy supplies, the more promising, mid-term sources are conservation,  wind, perhaps clean coal, and plug-ins using green electricity.

A Global Summit on Climate Change

The Brookings Institution, February 02, 2007

William J. Antholis, Director of Strategic Planning, The Brookings Institution

---

 

Climate change has burst back on the national and global political scene in 2007. The new Democratic Congress put the issue front and center, passing green energy legislation as part of its 100-hour legislative initiative, and setting up a special committee on climate. CEOs from ten major companies descended on Washington to talk about what kind of climate legislation is appropriate—an important change from debates about whether to regulate the climate. Then President Bush did what he had refused to do in his previous five State of the Union addresses: he acknowledged that "climate change" was a major challenge.

On the global stage, the new UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, is considering a special summit to address climate. He did this in the days running up to an expected UN scientific panel report saying that the evidence is now nearly certain that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.

 

See "Climate Change: Creating an E8," by Todd Stern and William Antholis for more information.

Perhaps the most surprising—and welcome—of these developments is the idea of a heads of state meeting, considered by the secretary-general. A summit that features the most significant global players—an E8, if you will—is exactly what the global environment needs to break through the political fog and bureaucratic clutter, and to give the issue the top-level treatment it deserves.

From a scientific standpoint, urgent action is needed. The report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms with near certainty what scientists have long feared: if unchecked, human activity could further raise average global temperatures from 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit in this century. (By comparison, the difference in average temperature between now and the last ice age is only 9 F.) Middle-range scenarios predict serious droughts and floods, more intense hurricanes, mounting pressure on fresh water supplies, increased spread of diseases, and rising sea levels that could uproot tens of millions of people worldwide.

And that's only the more moderate predictions. Under more catastrophic scenarios, melting Greenland ice could trigger a collapse of the ocean current system that warms Northern Europe and eastern North America. The possible consequences include Siberian temperatures descending upon Europe, mega-droughts from Northern Europe to Southern China, serious food and water shortages, widespread disorder and conflict, and a major blow to the earth's human-carrying capacity.

Ban Ki-moon's call for an emergency session has merit from a political and institutional standpoint, as well. It is clear that the UN-sponsored Kyoto Protocol is not going to get the job done. First, President George W. Bush pulled the U.S.—the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter—out of Kyoto. Beyond that, the current agreement lacks any real commitments—or even the possibility of real commitments—from developing countries, which are both highly vulnerable to environmental risks and also play an increasing role in generating them. Developing nations are right to argue that industrial countries need to act first, given the fact that the latter are responsible for most of the emissions and climate change that has happened to date. But countries like China, India and Brazil—not to mention middle income countries like Mexico and the secretary-general's own South Korea—will need to be part of any effective solution. The Kyoto agreement not only exempts them, it actually makes it procedurally difficult for them to take on binding targets.

Outside the UN, the G8 nations also have tried—and failed—to address the issue from time to time. Climate has always competed for leader attention—and lost to—the latest financial crisis, terrorist bombing, or nuclear test. Besides, the G8 membership is wrong for this purpose—climate cannot be solved without the participation of key developing countries.

So the secretary-general is considering a terrific idea. One major question still surrounds the idea: will President Bush go beyond his rhetoric and embrace meaningful action? This could be a high-stakes gamble for the secretary-general. If President Bush fails to show up, Ban Ki-moon might be seen as not having delivered on a global call to action. If the president does agree to join, focus would shift to the summit itself. Will Mr. Ban be able to convince the United States to come back to the negotiating table? Will he be able to convince developing countries to step up to their growing responsibility?

Whatever the case, climate change is an enormous challenge demanding dramatic action. The UN secretary-general should be commended for thinking big. And the international community—and the United States—should support him by helping him follow through.

Exxon Mobil Responds to AEI Solicitation of Skeptical Review

Original post on 2/2; revised post 2/4

Ken Cohen of Exxon Mobil responded in a conference call Friday to reports [Guardian and CNN stories excerpted below] that American Enterprise Institute, which has long received Exxon Mobil funding, has sought scientists to dispute and downplay the scientific conclusions of the 4th IPCC climate science report released yesterday. 

Cohen indicated that Exxon Mobil had no knowledge that AEI was soliciting scientists to comment upon the IPCC Assessment and that it did not condone any attempt to dispute or downplay the 4th IPCC assessment.  The science "is what it is."  Cohen called the assessment "the best compilation of thinking on the subject."  Cohen indicated that science shows global temperatures are rising, carbon dioxide levels are rising, the increase in global temperatures is linked to increasing carbon dioxide levels, and that emissions from fossil fuels have contributed to those levels.  The science shows that and the question is no longer whether global warming is being caused by human activity, including fossil fuel emissions and land use patterns, but "what is the right policy response to that reality?"  Cohen notes that Exxon Mobil scientists have been involved in the IPCC process.  Cohen also provided Exxon Mobil's comment on the 4th_assessment_response

The initial CNN report incorrectly attributed the letter soliciting reviews of the IPCC 4th Assessment to ExxonMobil, rather than AEI.  However, the current CNN report accurately reports that the letter was from AEI.  According to Exxon Mobil's Cohen, the media have not contacted Exxon prior to publishing their reports.

The news reports on the AEI funding issue underscore the difficulty facing ExxonMobil as it attempts to convince policymakers and the public that it is serious about global warming solutions.

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.

Exxon linked to climate change pay out

Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans.

By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer

February 3 2007: 6:12 AM EST

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.

The American Enterprise Institute sent the letters to scientists offering them $10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group widely considered to be the authority on climate change science.

Energy corner Looking for Iraq's oil The country, which has one of the largest reserves in the world, could pump 6 million barrels a day or more. But that sure isn't happening now. (more) It's easy being green The eco-friendly house (and renovation) has gone mainstream. But is it really worth the cost? (more) Catch us if you can Toyota extends its lead in hybrids with a Lexus sedan that's faster, cheaper, and more fuel-efficient than the competition. (more) The best, the worst in '06 Oil majors, niche ethanol firms clean up; hydrogen companies continue to bleed. Plus, what to watch for in 2007. (more)

Video More video Scientists say they're pressured to play down the impact of global change. CNN's Andrea Koppel reports (January 30) Play video

"The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," said the memo, which was sent to a professor at Texas A&M University.

"We are hoping to sponsor a paper...that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model [forecasting] outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy..."

The letter was obtained by CNNMoney.com through ExxposeExxon, a coalition of environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Exxon greens up its act

While there is nothing wrong with funding new research, activists said the intent of the letter seemed to be to criticize the UN report in the eyes of the public, outside the normal review process for scientific work.

"It is a major problem that scientists make arguments against climate change...that they can't back up [with] peer reviewed data," said Shawnee Hoover, campaign director for ExxposeExxon.

In a statement, AEI said Exxon's annual contribution to the group is small, amounting to less than 1 percent of AEI's annual budget.

It also said a $10,000 payment for scientific work was not unusual.

"A $10,000 fee for a research project involving the review of a large amount of dense scientific material, and the synthesis of that material into an original, footnoted and rigorous article is hardly exorbitant or unusual; many academics would call it modest," the statement read.

One academic disagreed with that claim.

"To me this is really amazing, you never get offered that kind of money," said Don Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois.

Wuebbles criticized the letter for attempting to influence the outcome of its authors.

"Even if groups ask you to write things, they don't try to give you the answer before hand," he said.

But David Karl, a climate professor at the University of Hawaii, said that the amount of money was typical for authoring such a report, but he took issue with the tone of the letter.

"It sounds like they were looking for a particular outcome," he said.

Exxon has been criticized in the past for funding groups that promote what many experts believe to be junk science.

"This has become a strategy of Exxon's over the years," said Hoover. "The number one way to fight Kyoto was to insert doubt into people's mind."

A recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists said Exxon spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 funding 43 "organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."

According to Exxon's Web site, the company contributed $240,000 to AEI in 2005 and a similar amount in 2004.

An Exxon (Charts) spokesman said the company continues to donate to AEI, but said it does not control what the group does.

The spokesman also noted that Exxon is one of many corporations that give to AEI, which is a well-known think tank.

But Exxon has recently acknowledged that global warming is happening. The oil giant conceded that humans are partly to blame for the phenomenon, and pledged to stop funding what many consider to be fringe groups that downplay human's role in global warming.

"There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed," reads Exxon's latest statement on global warming, issued Friday in response to the UN study. "CO2 emissions have increased...and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.

"Because the risks to society and ecosystems [posed by global warming] could prove to be significant, it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health."

But critics are calling Exxon's sincerity into question over their perceived attempts to cloud the public's perception of scientific opinion.

"What we want to see is that Exxon is making a polar change" before the company claims that it has reformed its old ways, said Hoover.

Sea Level Change Underestimated by IPCC Projections

Seas Rising Faster than U.N. Predicts

Feb. 2, 2007

PARIS - Sea levels are rising faster than predicted amid global warming, a group of scientists said on Thursday in a challenge to the U.N.'s climate panel which is set to issue a report toning down the threat of rising oceans. The researchers -- from the United States, Germany, France, Australia and Britain -- wrote in the journal Science that seas have been edging up more rapidly since 1990 than at any time in more than a century, outpacing computer projections.

The data now available raise concerns that the climate system, in particular sea level, may be responding more quickly than climate models indicate," Stefan Ramstorf of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and co-authors wrote.

Still, they said it was too early to say for sure that the accelerated rise was linked to greenhouse gases from human burning of fossil fuels. It might, they said, be caused by some natural climate variation.

Rising seas, widely linked to a warming stoked by emissions of greenhouse gases, could swamp low-lying Pacific islands, large tracts of Bangladesh or the southern United States and threaten cities from Shanghai to Buenos Aires.

And governments want to plan how to confront a long-term threat that could cause billions of dollars in damage.

The scientists said the rises seemed to exceed projections made in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which said sea levels were likely to rise by between 9 cm and 88 cm (3.5-34.6 inches) by 2100.

But the Science article comes on the eve of a new IPCC report, to be released in Paris, set to cut the likely range of rises to between 28 cm and 43 cm this century, based on six computer models.

HEAT

The IPCC says the range is narrower because of cuts in predictions of how quickly the oceans absorb heat -- water gets bigger as it warms. It also projects that Antarctica, by far the biggest store of frozen ice, will stay too cold to melt.

The experts writing in Science, including NASA's James Hansen, said sea levels rose by 3.3 mm (0.1299 inch) a year from 1993-2006, according to satellite measurements, against an IPCC best estimate in 2001 of below 2 mm a year.

Sea levels rose 17 cm in the 20th century. The 1993-2006 rate, if it lasted a century, would work out at 33 centimetres but many models project a quickening pace because of a buildup of greenhouse gases.

Previous projections, as summarised by the IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some respects even have underestimated the change, in particular for sea level," the scientists wrote.

Rahmstorf declined give his best estimate of how far sea levels would rise -- he wrote a report in December saying that observations of past data indicated that seas could rise by 50-140 cms by 2100, far higher than IPCC projections.

Story by Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent