Climate Change Insights : Climate Change Law and Policy Lawyers & Attorneys : McKenna Long & Aldridge Law Firm : Climate Change Regulation, Green Strategies, Environmental Policy

It has been three weeks since we first learned that hackers stole over 1,000 emails from the files of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Center (CRU).  In the days immediately following the theft, global warming doubters raced to media outlets and began crowing that the emails demonstrate the existence of a global conspiracy among politically motivated climate scientists to push their agenda.  Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced he would probe whether the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.”  Even Sarah Palin got into the act, penning an editorial for the Washington Post in which she calls upon President Obama to reconsider attending the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties, given that “leading climate scientists deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming.”

Based on these sound bites from Palin, Inhofe and other climate change doubters, you probably assume that the massive trove of stolen emails must contain at least one smoking gun, one unambiguous email in which a climate change expert admits “we got it all wrong.”  Au contraire. 

Climate change doubters point to a 1999 email from CRU scientist Phil Jones in which he states the following regarding his attempt to reconcile data in his own study with data from a Penn State study by Michael Mann, published in Nature: “I've just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.”  The “decline” Jones is referring to is that if one uses tree-ring density to estimate temperatures, the resulting data inexplicably show that temperatures have declined since the 1960s, when in fact we know from meteorological data that temperatures have increased.  Climate change doubters take Jones’ poor word choices (“trick” and “hide”) out of context and claim that he was engaged in “cooking the science.”  According to Michael Mann, however, the statistical “trick” referred to is replacing the tree ring-based temperature estimates with actual data on ambient air temperatures -- an analytical technique that has been openly discussed in scientific journals for over a decade. 

Climate change doubters also point to an email exchange between CRU's Jones and Penn State’s Mann in which they vow to keep two anti-climate change papers out of an assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and another email exchange in which they consider urging colleagues not to submit papers to a journal that publishes submissions from climate change skeptics.  (Apparently, they contemplated boycotting the offending journal because it had published a study later determined to have been underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute.)  Certainly, such attempts at scientific censorship are unwise.  That said, it hardly amounts to evidence of a global climate change conspiracy.

Indeed, nothing in the stolen emails undermines the evidence that the climate is changing and that the change is due in part to man-made GHG emissions.  The evidence demonstrating that CO₂ levels have risen since the start of the industrial revolution and that man is the source of increasing CO₂ levels over that period can no longer be seriously disputed.  The various impacts of that change in atmospheric CO₂ levels are well-documented and need not be repeated here.  But as to the public’s belief in climate change and man’s contribution to that change -- that is waning.  The polls make this clear: according to a recent poll, over half of Americans believe that there remains significant disagreement among scientists over global warming.  Tellingly, 84% of Americans believe it is likely that some scientists have falsified data to support their theories on global warming.  Clearly, the climate change doubters’ promotion of Climategate is having an effect -- one which may well doom the chances of passing climate change legislation in 2010.  I sincerely hope that the media begins to expose the truth behind Climategate: it is a tempest in the teapot, exploited by tea baggers and those who stand to lose business, not evidence of a conspiracy or evidence that global warming isn’t occurring.

1. Aggressive Emission Reduction Goals

Developed countries will need to agree upon on ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets.  The IPCC suggests that this implies a mid-term goal for 25-40 percent GHG cuts by 2020 based on a 1990 level baseline and 80 percent by 2050.  Collective action will need to be supplemented by individual national commitments such as those put forward by the United States and United Kingdom in recent days.  Likewise, developing countries will need to agree to taking GHG mitigation actions that are appropriate in their national development contexts ranging from shifting to low carbon power strategies to reducing rates of deforestation.  Some observers see a collective goal that recognizes the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels should not exceed two degrees Celsius as a more politically feasible outcome than the target cuts noted above.

2. Climate Finance Commitments

Countries need to agree upon climate finance mechanisms that will provide “fast start” funds of approximately $10-$12 to developing countries from 2010 to 2012.  This is viewed as a down payment of good faith towards future actions by developing countries.  The architecture for longer-term, predictable funding for climate adaptation and mitigation – including forestry and technology support will also need to be put into place.  However, it is less feasible for specific dollar amounts, governance regimes and sources of funding to be agreed upon in Copenhagen with respect to longer-term climate finance.

3. Accountability for Commitments

Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable (MRV) national commitments and actions agreed at Copenhagen are a lynchpin of success.  If a global agreement will be more than rhetoric, there simply needs to be a standardized methodology to “trust but verify” with a view to equitable burden sharing in the transformation to a global low carbon economy.  Countries need to establish common international methodologies to track and report emissions and subsequent measures to reduce emissions.

4. Signals for a Global Carbon Market

Private capital needs to see signals that a process of linking nations in post-Kyoto Protocol market-mechanism efforts that reduce emissions will continue.  In order for private capital to continue the evolution of a liquid, cost-effective mitigation market begun under the Clean Development Mechanism and Emissions Trading systems, political signals of this approach must be provided in Copenhagen.  This will allow the evolution of so-called flexible mechanisms towards at scale reductions in the most cost-effective manner possible.

5. Political Agreement With a View to Legal Agreement

There is broad consensus that a political agreement is the likely outcome from Copenhagen but ultimately enforcement requires a legal agreement.  Towards this goal, it is anticipated the countries will politically commit to finalizing a more legally binding agreement in 2010.  In the US context, this approach allows the Obama Administration to sequence working collaboratively with the Senate on a final energy and climate legislative package prior to promising what cannot be delivered at the international level.

Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, observed that there is a "very narrow window" of time in the Spring of 2010 - before attention shifts to the mid-term elections - for the Senate to pass a climate change bill, work out differences in a conference committee and then get both Houses to approve the compromise measure.

Jason Grumet, Founder and President of the National Commission on Energy Policy, concurred with Ms. Claussen's skepticism, stating that a fundamental lack of understanding of cap-and-trade among Senators, along with worries over its impact on an already flagging economy, further dim the prospects for an economy-wide cap-and-trade bill.  Mr. Grumet believes the chances may be somewhat better to pass something less than economy-wide cap-and-trade legislation.  For example, a bill which caps only the utility sector, imposes strengthened CAFE standards on transportation, and encourages energy-efficiency likely would fare better than the Kerry-Boxer bill or anything like it.

In addition to Ms. Claussen and Mr. Grumet, day one panelists included: James Rodgers, CEO of Duke Energy; Rick Duke, Assistant Secretary for Climate Change at the US Department of Energy; and Aimee Christensen, of Christiansen Global Strategies.

Here are a few gems from their "Science" web page:

• "CO₂ is not a pollutant."  In support of this assertion, the group claims:  "As humans emit CO₂ when we breathe, it is illogical to assert that CO₂ is a direct health hazard." Nobody claims that CO₂ is a direct health hazard; rather it is the propensity of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases to absorb and emit infrared radiation -- the so-called greenhouse effect -- that is hazardous.
   
• "Eliminate CO₂ and human life ceases to exist."  This is of course true.  Plants take in CO₂ and respire oxygen, which is essential to human life.  That said, nobody in Congress is trying to "eliminate" CO₂.  Rather, the goal of Congressional action is to lower the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ and thereby reduce the heating of the planet caused by the greenhouse effect.  (Duh!)

And who is behind "CO₂ is Green"?  Leighton Steward.  No, Mr. Steward is not a meteorologist, nor climate scientist, nor is he even a long-time student of climate change.  He has simply decided that he understands climatology better than those who have made the subject their life's work.  According to a September 25, 2009 report in the Washington Post, Steward - a former oil industry executive - has joined forces with Corbin J. Robertson, Jr., a Houston-based owner of coal resources that lets other companies mine his property in exchange for royalties.  Robertson and Steward have formed two interest groups, "Plants Need CO₂" and "CO₂ is Green," with Robertson providing about $1 million in funding.

You will search in vain for actual science as references for the many astounding quotes that litter CO₂isgreen.com.  Mostly, you will find cross-references to the companion website for "PlantsNeedCO₂.com."  Although the internet is filled with similarly baseless opinions of climate deniers, few have the resources to broadcast their hokum on network television.  This stuff is going mainstream.  I wonder what George Will thought when he saw the ad.

The US Business Case:

First, these international investment provisions will support substantial exports of US clean energy and low carbon technologies. The US cannot sit on the sidelines as Europe, Japan, Australia and others pursue low carbon export and investment opportunities.

Second, international investment empower the US Government and companies to cooperate on policy and technology strategies with key developing countries that can lead to concrete sectoral and economy-wide commitments through financial incentives.   

Third, international investment provisions in domestic climate legislation, linked to emerging global carbon finance markets, provide an important cost-containment tool for companies required to reduce their emissions in the United States. 

Fourth, findings from leaders in the national defense community suggest that addressing climate change globally is a matter of national security.  Increased impacts such as drought, flooding and sea level rise will have an increasing impact on political stability of vital US interests. US companies in partnership with the US Government can enhance mitigation and adaptation efforts globally which benefits our democratic ideals.

Finally, US businesses require a global response to climate change mitigation to protect their own company supply chains from interruption due to climate impacts and adaptation issues.

Accordingly, the following key principles for finance assistance must be preserved and fully funded in emerging legislation:

1. Robust provisions for valuing standing forests and other sector-based offsets. Other offset provisions can be shaped to build capacity for sectoral mitigation commitments by developing countries.
    
2. Bilateral and multilateral mechanisms, backed by US financial commitments that are substantial and sustainable, to accelerate clean energy technology deployment. These provisions can significantly reduce investment risk for US companies and leverage the massive private sector investment flows required to transfer technology and address global GHG mitigation and adaptation requirements. A blend of public risk reduction mechanisms and funds coupled with private sector capital is an essential part of any meaningful strategy to open international export markets for US technologies and address climate change.
    
3. Robust assistance to the most vulnerable populations for adaptation to climate change, with a view to reducing the greatest impacts of climate change. Addressing these concerns will require significant technology and infrastructure support from US companies.

These issues will be under negotiation at the upcoming G-20 in Pittsburgh as well.

Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana).  Indiana is among the highest energy consumption per capita States and is responsible for approximately 5 percent of US annual GHG emissions.  Almost all of Indiana’s electricity generation comes from coal.  As one of the nation’s top corn-producing States, Indiana has significant ethanol production potential, and the state has immense wind energy opportunities.  Energy and steel industries are among Mr. Bayh’s top campaign contributors and he is facing a tight re-election campaign in the fall of 2010.  The BP Products refinery in Whiting has the largest processing capacity of any refinery outside of the Gulf Coast region.  Senator Bayh is weighing these considerations deliberatively.  A suite of cost-containment provisions for regulated industries, clean energy incentives for emerging technologies and international competitiveness protections that have direct benefit to Indiana are considerations, as are political prospects in a conservative State.

Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio).  Energy consumption in Ohio’s industrial sector ranks among the highest in the Nation.  Ohioans are still haunted by a 2003 transmission failure that led to the largest blackout in North American history, affecting over 50 million people.  Coal fuels about nine-tenths of net electricity generation in Ohio.  Senator Voinovich is set to retire in 2010.  On climate change, Voinovich has stated, “There is a lot of work to be done, but it’s still open…I think there is a possibility in getting something done that is meaningful.”  In the past few years, Voinovich has introduced and supports energy bills that focus on incentives for clean energy technology deployment both domestically and internationally including the "Incentives-Based Climate Policy Act," and the “21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act.”  He is on record saying that there is “too much crap” in the House-passed “American Clean Energy Security Act” (Waxman-Markey), his main concern being the 2020 greenhouse reduction targets under the bill are too ambitious. 

Ohio’s current unemployment rate (11.1%) is higher than the national average (9.7%) as of July 2009.  There is significant angst in the State of losing jobs overseas due to issues such as lower labor and environmental standards.  Accordingly, one can anticipate Voinovich desiring price controls on the cost of carbon and protections against overseas industries that don’t take sectoral or economy-wide carbon cap.

Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA).  Pennsylvania ranks second in the Nation in nuclear power generating capacity, is a major coal production State and sells approximately 50 percent of its coal to other States.  Pennsylvania is also the leading petroleum refining State in the Northeast.  At an August meeting of Netroots Nation, Senator Specter hinted that he “expected” to vote for cloture on a climate bill and stated that he joined the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee after switching to the Democratic Party with a view to shaping the climate legislation and he “expects a strong bill.”  In the past Specter co-sponsored with Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the “Low-Carbon Economy Act,” which had weaker GHG emission targets than Waxman-Markey and established so-called “automatic off ramps” allowing the US to weaken its targets if key developing countries don’t adopt their own caps.

Therein lies the conundrum of getting a robust climate change bill through the Senate and signed into law.  The route to political success relies upon GHG targets that may not match the level of ambition required by science, a further expansion of allowances to regulated entities, and trade protectionist measures as a stick for developing country commitments.  Such provisions are a long way from the Obama Administration goals of science driving policy, 100 percent auction of allowances and emphasizing bilateral clean tech cooperation with China.  Yet, it appears to be the only pathway to move the issue forward in the Senate this political season. 

Palin's plan would make even Senator Inhofe blush. Let me point out the obvious: the primary goal of cap-and-trade is to reduce emission of greenhouse gases which contribute to global warming. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you must in part place the economy on a trajectory of decreasing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing use of low carbon alternatives (including nuclear as far as I am concerned).

Energy independence is certainly desirable, and reducing import of foreign oil will go a long way toward its achievement. But substituting American oil for foreign oil is not sustainable - unless you don't believe that climate change is occurring. I guess we now know where Gov. Palin stands on climate change. 

I won't recapitulate what the scientists said today. If you want a taste, just look up the papers done by today's presenters including Susan Solomon of NOAA, Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, and Henry Jacoby of MIT.

Remember that scientists tend to understate conclusions and depolarize language. Nowhere are these tendencies more evident than in the technical presentations here that one after the other showed -- to use the scientists' word -- just how "robust" their conclusions are.

A lawyer, a politician, or a citizen might be tempted to read between the lines today and substitute words "alarming" or "overwhelming."