Red, Green, and Blue

In the see saw of that the international climate negotiations is the balance has now shifted towards the developing countries. The developed and developing countries argued vigorously over the one last year and both the parties have moved back and forth several times on their negotiation positions.

The United States under the leadership of President Barack Obama pursued a highly aggressive diplomatic effort which resulted in China agreeing to various mitigation measures including improvement in energy intensity. Taking cue from China various other developing countries too announced ambitious mitigation and clean energy initiatives.

The United States successfully planted seeds of division in the developing countries’ camp by singling out China for concentrated talks but what happened transpired throughout the developing world after that was completely unexpected. India, in addition to other developing countries announced several short and long term initiatives as an answer to the increasing international pressure to act on the rising carbon emissions. Read the rest of this entry »

Last week I wrote in this space that when faced with a problem (global warming, carbon dioxide emissions) that so clearly requires huge top-down action from governments the world over, what two contrarians write in a book doesn’t exactly bother me that much. It bothers Joe Romm at Climate Progress, clearly, and now, well, I’ve got even less company, because members of Congress are pissed off too. Read the rest of this entry »

Agriculture, transportation and small businesses exempt from Boxer-Kerry

Only 2% of companies are covered by the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, but that 2% represents 70% of US emissions, says Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), the bill’s co-sponsor. Read the rest of this entry »

In the recent few days the Indian government has struggled to clearly state its official stand on the issue of reducing carbon emissions. While the traditional stance has been to oppose any mandatory emission targets, their has been a drastic change in this policy with indications of a domestic emissions reduction law and other proactive mitigation measures. The situation worsened after the environment minister, in an informal letter to the Prime Minister, said that India needs to move away from its traditional stance accept a far more responsible role at the international arena.

Mr. Jairam Ramesh, while expressing his personal views, advised Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh that India needs to be more proactive in reducing its carbon emissions. He said that India needs to work beyond the issue of differential responsibility, which incidentally has been central to India’s opposition to mandatory emission cuts. The minister wrote that India should play the role of a deal maker and not a deal breaker. He added that by accepting greater responsibility India would gain strategic leverage at the international forums possibly paving way for India’s successful bid for an place in the UN Security Council. Read the rest of this entry »

With hope of the US Climate Bill being cleared before the Copenhagen Summit in December there are substantial doubts over the successful negotiation of an international climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. However, the pressure on developing countries to do their bit has resulted in announcements of many national climate goals and regional cooperation deals. It would be interesting to see if these regional agreements infuse momentum into the negotiations for a global climate treaty.

The Indian and Chinese officials recently signed a memorandum of understanding which aims at increased cooperation in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. The two countries also agreed to jointly study the impacts of global warming and climate change in the Himalayan region. The deal is crucial since it is the first major deal between the two countries after China broke ranks from other developing countries and expressed intentions to take up voluntary sectoral emission cuts.

Pressure Tactics: In the recent months there has been virtually no significant activity on the part of the developed countries with regard to emission reduction goals being set up or announcement of financial aid to poor and developing countries. There is still no consensus on the technology transfer and intellectual property rights issue. These issues are central to the goal of reducing carbon emissions worldwide. The developing countries demand adequate funds and technology as they see mandatory emission cuts to be financially non-feasible for there growing economies.

With these regional deals the developing countries seek to increase pressure on the developed countries not only to agree to bold mitigation measures but also provide for adequate resources to the developing countries to reduce their own emissions. Read the rest of this entry »

Today is 350.org’s International Day of Climate Action, during which people around the world are trying to call attention to our need to bring the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back down to 350 parts-per-million (ppm). A noble cause, to be sure — but can we actually do it? Read the rest of this entry »

I’ll show you my business card if you show me yours…

The Yes Men were up to their usual tricks yesterday, impersonating an official from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and supposedly reversing the dogged stance the Chamber has taken on climate change. A call from the Chamber last summer to conduct a “Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st century” on climate change science (their own characterization) led to an exodus of several prominent members wanting nothing to do with such shenanigans.

It seems that the Chamber didn’t find the prank so terribly amusing. Pity.

When Joe Romm over at the Indispensable Climate Progress (I capitalize indispensable because the blog should just always be called that) gets going, he really gets going. Read the rest of this entry »

Olympia Snowe’s support of the finance committee draft puts health care back in play, but without a public option. The Graham-Kerry compromise climate bill would start to cap carbon, but also allow coal to cash in. Can Obama’s progressive base settle for incrementalism? If Arriana Huffington speaks for the movement, HOPE may not hold out in the face of so little CHANGE during the 2010 mid-terms. </p>

After so much bad news on health care, the White House and Senate Dems are clinging to Senator Olympia Snowe’s support of the Finance Committee draft bill. While the bill does deliver on some of the key provisions the White House wanted - including insurance company restrictions on applicants with pre-existing medical conditions - it does not include a public option. What’s more, with CBO costing the “bipartisan” bill out somewhere north of $800 billion, there is little doubt that as amendments are made and more scrutiny is placed on estimated Medicare savings, a $1 trillion price tag is going to put Snowe’s support at risk (to say of nothing of some already-reluctant Democrats.

Similarly, the climate bill strategy that Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham proposed in their New York Times Op-Ed may make passage more likely as some pundits have argued. But, it cannot please progressives to see so many giveaways already - before the Senate has even begun trading horses in earnest. The Graham/Kerry compromise promises to make America “the Saudi Arabia of clean coal,” polishes the drills for more domestic drilling, and lifts restrictions to allow for faster proliferation of new nuclear plants. Not exactly the kind of thing that will warm hearts among hardcore conservationists.

But, a health care bill that restricts companies from discriminating against pre-existing conditions and a cap-and-trade regime (even one with a price collar and a lot of allowances) mean something to the progressive base, right? Not necessarily.

Arianna Huffington, a thought leader of the progressive movement, lambasted Obama and the incremental approach over the weekend on This Week and again on NPR’s On Point. Huffington’s argument is that “No Child Left Behind” is a cautionary tale that the Obama White House should study well. In her reckoning, the Act made no real progress in improving American education, but it gave the Washington establishment cover to say, “we dealt with education,” sapping momentum for any real and renewed action on the issue in the Obama administration.

Could the same happen to Obama’s health care and climate agendas if the Dems take pennies on the dollar for all of the political capital POTUS has invested? And will their base settle for the incrementalist approach anyway? He might have been able to argue the “old college try” if hopes had not been so high, promises so lofty, and the stage seemingly so well set (including the sort-of supermajority in the Senate). Instead, with little more than promises on progressive hot-buttons like Iraq and Afghan deescalation, Gitmo closings, repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” health care and climate change, patience among progressives is wearing thin.

The political calculation is tricky. The White House - and Dems facing fights in the 2010 mid-terms - might be better to take outright losses on these watered-down bills, hold their line, and position the GOP as obstructionists in order to reenergize the progressive base.

Photo credit (CC) JD Lasica, socialmedia.biz

The news that President Barack Obama had been selected as the Norwegian Nobel committee’s 2009 peace prize winner was met with a near-unanimous non-partisan international response: “Huh?” Even in the President’s own acceptance speech, the chord struck was not so much disagreement as shock.

It is good to see that there are still some surprises in the world, and - in particular - in politics. Still, truly shocking political events - and reactions to them - are rare. Careful observers can see most Hill happenings coming from miles down the road and months ahead of schedule. We know some things will happen already, still our political and media culture waits out the inevitable before allowing events to capture headlines, ride roughshod over public opinion and exert themselves on political discourse.

Borrowing a page from Maureen Dowd’s “imaginings” playbook, this trip to 2010 explains how Washington’s worst-kept secrets will effect the climate change bill by collaring the President and Congressional Dems, and threatening our collective energy future.

FEBRUARY 10, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC

REACTION MIXED AS SENATE CLIMATE BILL GOES TO FLOOR
Critics Assail Compromises While Some Laud Any Action in Time of Political Turmoil

The Senate will likely take up floor debate of its climate bill this week after the proposed legislation was released from committee with considerable compromise put in place to help win votes from reluctant Senators who are facing election-year political pressure and mounting disappointing news about the economy and the war in Afghanistan.

The White House and Congressional Democratic leaders had hoped to have a climate change bill in place before the global climate change conference held in Copenhagen last December. Instead, American negotiators went to the United Nations conference with only the promise of continued domestic effort on greenhouse gas reduction, and observers felt that the Copenhagen conference’s result was all too similar to the Kyoto agreement it was supposed to build upon. While the world left Denmark with a resolution that features very strong aspirational emissions targets, there remains no enforcement mechanism in place, and it is unlikely that the world’s leading emitters will ratify any of the agreement’s most restrictive standards.

The Copenhagen failure took much of the momentum away from domestic climate change legislation, and action on energy and environmental reform has been further hampered as time gets closer to 2010’s mid-term elections and bad news on the economy mounts. Consistent with moribund projections, holiday sales figures were down for a second consecutive year, and the markets took a tumble as cautious investors reacted to retailers’ figures.

The tumble followed earlier market reaction to early January’s fourth quarter earnings announcements, which showed that in spite of stirring signs of economic strength, real recovery is still far from solidified.

The combination of slow sales and low earnings had brought markets back to a point where many observers felt valuation had leveled off from last fall’s slight recovery bubble. But, as final confirmation of double-digit unemployment became reality with last week’s announcement of jobless figures, the market dropped further.

All of the disappointing economic news made it impossible to get a climate change bill to the floor of the Senate without strong trade protections put in place for the domestic industries that are the most energy-intensive.

The protections spurred objections from global trading partners and concerns from observers worldwide that embedding carbon leakage tariff adjustments into the legislation amounts to protectionism and may further stunt economic recovery. Still, Senate negotiators had to include the provisions to win support from Midwestern Democrats who want both to claim progressive credentials by voting for a climate bill, but also needed any such bill to deliver not only protections - but also dollars - for heavy-emitting industries that employ their constituents.

The bill is expected to be debated next week after hearings on the President’s dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal are complete. In late 2009, Obama dismissed McChrystal from his post as commanding general in Afghanistan amid a very public disagreement about troop levels and strategy. The President has faced immense criticism from all sides after dismissing McChrystal. Republicans have criticized him for putting his own “yes man” in charge of executing the plan that McChrystal concocted because he subsequently adopted the recommendation to elevate troop levels. From his left, Obama has faced accusations that escalation is the wrong course and is a repudiation of the “call to action” that he received with his Nobel Peace Prize award last October.

Pundits had expected the Senate climb to be more difficult even than the House’s trials in passing the Waxman-Markey climate bill in early summer last year. Senate rules, election-year pressures and the fact that the House bill relied on heavy support from very populous blue states to win passage all spelled trouble for the Senate bill. Also, Obama’s own clout on the Hill was heavily damaged after last year’s failure to pass a strong health care bill.

Trade protections, heavy dilution of greenhouse has emissions targets, watered-down fuel and building energy efficiency standards, and huge cash handouts to utilities and the oil, gas and coal industries are just some of the elements of the final Senate bill that are drawing fire. As they did for the much-stronger Waxman-Markey bill, leading green groups like Greenpeace are opposing the Senate bill. Others insist that while the bill is imperfect, an incremental approach to energy and environmental legislation may be the best way to proceed.

Whatever the result, it now seems highly unlikely that the House and Senate could possibly agree on a bill in conference committee during this session, and any climate change legislation will likely have to wait until after mid-term elections. Of course, by that time, President Obama will be ramping up his own re-election bid and with hurt feelings among many of the constituencies that supported him in 2008 (gay rights groups and anti-war activists chief among them), Obama may choose to take on some more mainstream initiatives and leave climate change to the side for a while

Take it for what it is: my imagination. Except that we already know that most of this WILL certainly happen. What we don’t know yet, is how we’ll react.