Watch What Happens: Top 5 U.S. Climate & Energy Questions in 2012
President Obama came into his first term in office focused on 3 key energy and climate issues: 1) cap & trade legislation, 2) offshore oil production and 3) scaled-up support for nuclear energy. 2011 saw all those issues depart as centerpieces of U.S. policy direction. 2012 will bring a set of high stakes questions that will set the direction.
1) Presidential Politics and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Backwards or Forwards?
In the absence of Congressional action, the EPA has moved forward aggressively on climate and energy issues. In the coming year new rules regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act are anticipated. In addition, the EPA has a number of petitions, rulemakings, compliance actions and studies in its pipeline that will impact the future of shale gas development in the United States. As the November Presidential election inches closer, the already sensitive positioning on how far and fast the EPA should go will only increase leaving the pace of both Clean Air Act and shale gas regulatory issues in an uncertain space.
2) Keystone XL: What to Do?
The Keystone XL pipeline that would bring additional oil sands fuel to U.S. refineries from Canada has gained increasing national attention. The Obama Administration has tried to avoid making a decision on the Presidential Permit for the project until after 2012. However, the recent Congressional payroll tax-cut extension included provisions that seemingly require a final decision by the President in February of 2012. Whether the US need for secure sources of oil delivered in a manner balanced with environmental concerns can be accommodated in a politically charged year remains to be seen.
3) California Cap & Trade: Ready or Not?
While the term “cap and trade” has become “so 2010” in Washington, D.C. , California has moved ahead. After citizens voted down Proposition 23 that would have stopped AB32, Governor Jerry Brown’s administration has moved aggressively on enacting the climate provisions within the legislation. Implementation of the legislation in earnest was delayed a year to the beginning of 2013 to ensure the government and private sector are fully prepared. 2012 will be a crucial year for finalizing the market mechanisms, regulatory capacity, and carbon offset mechanisms are in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Success or failure in the California market will influence how federal policy might address climate change in the coming years.
4) Solar Drama for Obama?
The collapse of Solyndra and the subsequent loss of U.S. taxpayer dollars through Department of Energy loan guarantees has provided political fodder for those who seek to limit the scope of the President’s green jobs agenda. Furthermore the end of 2011 sees the expiration of a key federal incentive for renewable energy development, called the 1603 cash grant program. The program allows solar developers to monetize tax equity, thereby lowering the cost of debt and construction costs for the sector. The U.S. solar industry grew by 140 percent year over year in the third quarter of 2011. In addition a growing trade war with China over solar manufacturing standards is emerging. Market analysts will be closely watching how the U.S. sector can overcome these challenges in 2012.
5) Showdown in the Friendly Skies?
The aviation industry accounts for just over 2% of all global greenhouse gas emissions and that figure will increase to at least 3% by 2050. In December, European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that emissions taxes on the sector pursuant to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme are legal despite the protests of the U.S., Canada and China. Airlines will be charged for carbon emissions created by flights to and from 27 EU countries starting January 1. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged “appropriate action” to ward off these taxes and the issue could spill into the arcane International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 2012 will see increased legal and political wrangling over this issue.
Clean Energy Standard Update
Since President Obama’s State of the Union address announcing the Administration goal of setting a Clean Energy Standard (CES) deliberations have shifted to Congress. The President has called for utilities to meet a target of 80 percent of their electricity from sources such as solar, wind, natural gas, nuclear and so-called clean coal by 2035 but the real work now begins in moving this through the legislative process. Bipartisan congressional leadership is where this will have to begin and end if the President’s goal is to become a reality.
In the Senate, most of the anticipated action will take place in the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee (SENR) where the bipartisan leadership of Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski are essential for success. Senator Bingaman met with President Obama at the White House shortly after the State of the Union to discuss the CES but has remained guardedly supportive of the President’s proposal. Senator Murkowski remains in a listening mode but open to the discussion.
Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated that Murkowski and Bingaman “have an agreement on the standard.” However, within hours of that statement Murkowski stated that the Majority Leader had “jumped the gun.”
Reaching bipartisan agreement will come down to definitions of what is “clean.” “Clean” in the White House agenda focuses on air emissions, primarily greenhouse gas emissions. However, opponents of that approach are more focused on the broader lifecycle of environmental impacts associated with any given energy source. Some don’t consider coal even with carbon capture & storage to be clean noting coal ash and other challenges to the sector. Others don’t consider nuclear “clean” citing waste issues in particular. Secretary Chu during testimony today before SENR on the DOE budget was specific in describing eligible clean energy sources as including nuclear as noted here in a section of his written testimony:
"A Clean Energy Standard will provide a clear, long-term signal to industry to bring capital off the sidelines and into the clean energy sector. It will grow the domestic market for clean sources of energy – creating jobs, driving innovation and enhancing national security. And by drawing on a wide range of energy sources including renewables, nuclear, clean coal and natural gas, it will give utilities the flexibility they need to meet our clean energy goal while protecting consumers in every region of the country."
In the Senate, feasibility of a CES will largely come down to how many votes will be gained by broadening the definition of “Clean” as envisioned by the Obama Administration versus the number of votes that will be turned off by such an approach. One can expect Senate hearings and negotiations to begin in earnest on a CES in mid-to-late March at the earliest.
Feasibility of the Clean Energy Standard in the House of Representatives appears to be more a matter of overcoming distaste by Republican leadership for perceived government mandates of such a legislative approach. House Energy and Power subpanel chairman Ed Whitfield, speaking this morning to National Electricity Forum made his view known on a CES: "My preference is that we not try to establish a federal standard. Now there are some on my committee that disagree with that, I know that some in the Senate disagree with that. So that’s another issue that we’ll be looking at as we move forward.”
What now on Climate Legislation?
While faint glimmers of hope remain alive that the Senate will pass climate change legislation this Fall or during a lame duck session of Congress, most observers anticipate that cap-and-trade will have to wait for the future in terms of federal action. Two particularly interesting perspectives on the “What Now” question have emerged in the past week that deserve attention and analysis.
Megan McGowan suggests http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100818/are-moderate-republicans-obamas-leadership-keys-federal-climate-law that a lack of Presidential leadership and no support from moderate Republicans are to blame for failures on cap-and-trade legislation and these dynamics will need to change for future success. The article quotes Republicans and environmentalists who think Obama needs to stop listening to nervous political advisors, get out of listening mode, get bipartisan agreement on principles, lock the door with moderates and come out when there is a deal. Similarly, McGowan notes the reality of climate change and the likely change of margins in the next Congressional session will require moderate Republicans to come to the table, as simple party opposition will no longer be a politically feasible position.
An alternative “what now” analysis comes from Michael Brune, the new head of the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest conservation organization. In an interview with Yale Environment 360 http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2303, Brune suggests the path forward is a multi-pronged attack on climate change. This alternative path would put less emphasis on one-single bill and moderate deal-making, and emphasize:
· Less environmental ngo-corporate collaboration on cap-and-trade policy replaced in part by a more adversarial approach until corporations make clear commitments to change their operations and public policy positions.
· Grassroots campaigns to prevent the building of new coal-fired power plants,
· Public support for EPA actions to reduce pollutants in the air,
· Scaling up renewable energy support, and
· Scaling up production and demand for natural gas.
Both perspectives share a common goal of creating political space in Washington, D.C. to create meaningful action on climate change. At the core of McGowan’s article is an implicit deal-making that involves grand concessions to traditionally intensive ghg sectors such as coal and oil, whereas there is likely less room for such concessions in the path suggested by Brune. It remains to be seen if a political path forward can accommodate both perspectives.
A Time for Action
President Obama's first Oval Office address was highly anticipated, as there is mounting criticism of the Administration's management of the BP oil spill. Supporters of climate and clean energy legislation eagerly gathered around their televisions in hopes that the President would provide the much needed road map detailing how this tragedy should transform American thinking on energy policy going forward.
However, many were left disappointed as the President did not answer some key questions nor did he set forth specific expectations for the Senate's summer session. There was considerable rhetoric about the country's oil addiction and the need for compelling and immediate clean energy legislation, but President Obama offered few specifics, although he seemed to provide some support for combining elements of several bills. However, the President, did not go so far as to mention a price on carbon, raising the tax on gasoline, or placing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
While the President's remarks could be seen as a big blow to Senators. John Kerry (D-Massashusetts) and Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), co-authors of a Senate cap-and-trade bill, in a joint statement they said that Obama has joined their fight.
"There can be no doubt that the president is rolling up his sleeves to ensure we establish a market mechanism to tackle carbon pollution, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs each year, strengthen energy independence, and improve the quality of the air we breathe," the two senators said.
In addition to the Kerry-Lieberman package, other legislative potentials include the Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman's (D-New Mexico) bill (S. 1462) which includes a renewable energy standard; a more ambitious renewable energy target found in bill co-sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) and Senator Snowe (R-Maine) S. 862, an alternative to the traditional ideas on pricing carbon (S. 2877) from Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) and Susan Collins (R-Maine); and a bill (S. 3464) promoting energy efficiency from Senators Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina).
Prior to the speech, Senator Lieberman indicated that he hoped President Obama would emphasize the need for a market mechanism for pricing carbon.
"The truth is, trying to make America energy independent without creating a market mechanism to price carbon, would be the equivalent of President Kennedy launching our national effort to put a man on the moon without building a rocket," Lieberman said. "It's that important, and any alternative legislation being proposed -- including some that has some good stuff in it -- that doesn't do something to price carbon, will not unleash the billions and billions of dollars in the private sector that are waiting for that signal to put their money into clean alternative energy sources for our society."
The President stated that "the one approach I will not accept is inaction." The President is correct in this regard, as there has been a lot of talk for a long time. Yet, some specifics from the White House would be useful right now.
COP-15 Day 11: Snow, Money, Gore and More!!!
It seems as though the moods of optimism and pessimism with respect to reaching a deal in Copenhagen change by the hour. Last evening, there was supreme doubt a deal could get done with many observers beginning to retrench to old positions of blaming US intransigence. The US, familiar to the villain role in climate proceedings, was viewed as having a weak target with little assurance it can deliver on anything back in the Senate, yet strong demands of developing countries particularly of China and little finance to provide poorer countries as promised in the Bali Action Plan.
Yet when I awoke before dawn, a fresh blanket of snow had covered the streets of Copenhagen and a new sense of optimism was in the air. I had an early morning breakfast with a senior member of the US delegation who promised big news in just a few hours. When I emerged from speaking on a panel at a side event on climate finance, the “big news” had emerged. Upon her arrival at the Bella Center, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US now supports a $100 billion annual climate finance fund for developing countries by 2020. This proposal mirrors one previously put forward by the UK Prime Minister Brown and then endorsed in a breakthrough moment by the Prime Minister of Ethiopia on behalf of the African Union yesterday as reported in this blog yesterday. The spin today is that this new proposal from the US, which is subject to reaching the broader political agreement, reflects a new level of good faith in the negotiations. Climate finance is a lynchpin of these negotiations.
With Bella Center access now denied to most due to security, there are more people on the streets and impromptu meetings around town today. I trudged through the snow to the old Imperial Theatre and was lucky to get into a packed audience of mostly Danish citizens to see none other than Al Gore. The Vice President was fresh from the negotiation halls to both promote his new book “Our Choice” and to reflect on the importance of the Copenhagen negotiations. The crowd was electric and Gore delivered a substantive and passionate overview of the climate challenge.
Vice President Gore provided the following insight on the key issues for resolution:
- Significant progress in last 3-4 hours in the negotiations.
- US-Africa-EU convergence on the $100 billion annual fund by 2020 is a big breakthrough.
- Resolution on the role of Kyoto Protocol going forward remains a sticking point.
- Agreement by China and other developing countries to submit to international accountability measures on their intensity target commitments and national mitigation action plans remains another sticking point.
- Reducing forest emissions will need to be part of the final agreement.
- Notably he did not mention US emission reduction targets as a key sticking point.
- Whatever outcome here in Copenhagen, the next step will be quick momentum towards a binding treaty.
- The US domestic goal should be to deliver legislation out of the Senate and on President Obama’s desk by Earth Day 2010 (April 22nd)
- The timing of COP-16 in Mexico next fall and mid-terms in November is a formula for diminished expectations. Gore would like to see the Mexico meeting moved up to next July in Mexico, the week after the football World Cup in South Africa.
So we are heading towards the final 24 hours. There are swings in expectations by the hour and still much bracketed text. The US bottom-line demand is clearly transparency and accountability from China on their commitments. The question is will China and others trust President Obama to deliver his own reduction targets from the Senate, enough to sign on the dotted line. It is a tough sell in both directions.
COP-15 Day 10: Copenhagen - Moving from Rhetoric to Reality?
As heads of state begin to arrive, the mood remains quite anxious in Copenhagen. Significant amounts of negotiating text still remain in brackets and unresolved. Clearly political level help is necessary. Information suggests that in fact high level talks began in the past few days from respective capitals. There will be little time for informal negotiations once all key heads of state arrive, so ministerial negotiations will need to continue in parallel as it is unrealistic to expect all nuances of climate policy text to be taken care of at the highest level. Heads of state will only be asked to address the bigger picture issues: targets & timetables for reductions, finance and a timeline for achieving a legally binding agreement.
Connie Hedegaard, the Danish President in charge of the UN meeting, resigned as a procedural matter today and will be replaced by Danish Prime Lars Loekke Rasmussen who will be responsible for shepherding heads of state towards a political agreement. There is confusion on the way forward as once again a higher level political text is emerging from the Danes with a lack of clarity on how it links the working group negotiations text. It was a similar move by the Danes last week with the now infamous "Danish Leaked Text" that halted negotiations for a full day. The G77 and China are vocal today with their displeasure on any delinking of negotiating text processes from a political agreement text. But time is short and there is no threat to suspend negotiations as of this moment.
Environmental non-governmental organizations under the umbrella of the Climate Action Network believe three key things must occur for the high level portion of the COP to succeed:
- The US is too focused on legal wrangling. Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama must take the negotiations out of this defensive stance.
- China needs to step up, and become part of the international response not just provide a pledge to do things domestically.
- The EU needs to increase its level of ambition, going to 30 percent reductions below 1990 levels in the medium-term and put forward a long-term financing proposals.
In plenary today, heads of state have begun to make a series of speeches to set the stage for final negotiations. While most have stayed with generalities, the most constructive engagement came on the issue of finance from the Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Union. Zenawi set a positive tone stating “we are not here to take moral high ground but to negotiate.” For many observers this represents an important change in tone that could help repair the North-South divide that has poisoned the Copenhagen negotiations at times. Likewise the White House confirmed President Obama spoke with Zenawi just a few days ago. Prime Minister Zenawi presented a concrete way forward on the contentious issue of climate finance for developing countries:
- A fast action fund of at least $10 billion 2010-2012, placed in a trust fund composed of an equal number of donors and recipients. 40 percent earmarked for Africa. The African earmarks should be managed by the African Development Bank and the fund should launch no later than mid-2010.
- Longer-term financing should start by 2013 and reach $100 billion annually by 2020 and include creative mechanisms to raise funds including Special Drawing Rights from the International Monetary Fund.
Zenawi said that Africa’s scaled back expectations are designed to achieve reliable funding and a seat at the table in the final days of negotiation. Yet he also warned that this more flexible position should not be confused with desperation as “Africa will not accept a political agreement that is empty words.” Whether one agrees with the positions put forward by the Prime Minister or not, they do represent a sign of practicality, compromise and specificity that will be required to get a deal done.
COP-15 Day 9: Political Horses are Coming to Water
The UN climate negotiations are getting more tense by the day. Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Yvo De Boer, reflecting on his work today, noted that “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink” in reference to the Heads of State who will be arriving over the next 48 hours with a view to a political agreement being reached.
US Special Envoy Todd Stern spent a good portion of his day informally negotiating with his Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua, Vice Chairman of China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). The US is in a continual position of defending President Obama’s mitigation targets of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 when IPCC data suggests deeper cuts (25-40 percent) and from a different baseline level (1990). US officials put on a full court press today putting out the word that there are “different pathways” to reach the same scientific goals and their targets are as ambitious as any brought to Copenhagen. When pressed on the issue of whether Obama’s announced negotiating position is indeed a final position, Stern stated that he is “not anticipating any further changes to mitigation reduction targets but there are other programs in the Congressional bills beyond the direct targets that would reduce emissions significantly further.” I spoke with a colleague at the World Resources Institute, (the former employer of Jonathan Pershing, a key negotiator for the State Department) on this matter who notes a study finding that additional potential emission reduction programs under the Waxman-Markey bill (from which the current 17 percent position originates) beyond the stated cap target could actually get the US 33 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. National Renewable Energy Portfolio standards are an example of an additional policy measure that can achieve further reductions.
China on the other hand, is under pressure to “put pen to paper” in the international compliance context. The China mitigation pledge is to reduce "carbon intensity" by 40-45 percent by the year 2020, compared with 2005 levels. Carbon intensity, China's preferred measurement, is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of GDP. By and large that target appears to be a satisfying starting point for the US and others, although there is certainly pressure for more. More relevant to the informal negotiations today, the US wants some measure of international review and auditing processes and agreed upon methodologies for commitments by all countries. China and the US are not yet there on a political deal that encompasses a shared vision of monitoring, verification and reporting.
Thrown into the mix are the continued G77 demands on climate finance and setting a deadline for a legally binding agreement in 2010 to firm up the political deal anticipated here in Copenhagen. President Obama’s calls to some African leaders yesterday and their return to the negotiating table appear to signal that piece of the puzzle can come together at the end of the day. The negotiations are now focused on taking the various negotiation text pieces as far as possible with a deadline for working groups to report to the Plenary by tomorrow morning with results. At that point, the horses will begin trotting into town….and there is plenty of water (and now snow!) in Copenhagen. Stay tuned.
COP-15 Day 4: Talks Continue With Cautious Optimism
President Obama's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize was center stage at the COP-15 Conference. As the ceremony was broadcast on giant screens, attendees eagerly watched President Obama's acceptance of the prestigious award with his commitment to the issues before the United Nations conference on climate change.
Meanwhile, negotiators faced tough sledding as solid language implementing confirmable climate change commitments remained elusive. Various working groups continue focusing on separate tracks in hopes of creating some solid building blocks for an overall agreement. In addition, diplomatic efforts are underway to craft concrete language "locking in" various countries' promises in emissions reductions as "targets" which are verifiable.
The combination of the Nobel Prize ceremony and the anticipated arrival of over 100 world leaders including Nobel Laureate President Barack Obama has increased the pressure for reaching an accord. Most agree that the structure for an agreement must be reached before the leaders arrive in Copehagen next week. There are genuine fears that the massive increase in media attention and security may make it almost impossible to get much done at the conference next week.
Yet, there remains a cautious optimism that indeed some accord will be reached which reflects progress beyond the Kyoto Treaty and toward another treaty next year. President Obama's commitments on climate change and the corresponding Nobel ceremony only fueled that optimism.
COP-15 Day 4: Reaching a Political Agreement and the Role of the UN
'Political agreement' was the word of the day in late briefings yesterday and continuing today. Its definition varies from country to country.
For the United States, it means an agreement that President Obama can sign when he comes next week with the full expectation that the United States will honor its terms even without Congressional action. While the preference is for adoption by the Congress by simple majority votes as legislation (as opposed to ratification by the Senate as a treaty with a 2/3 vote), Parties have been assured that President Obama can implement his commitments without Congressional action.
A serious and growing issue remains the role of the UN in monitoring, verifying, and enforcing emissions reductions commitments. African countries have taken a high profile and vocal role in opposing early proposals for an supervising entity outside of the UN. So far, the United States remains firm on its pre-conference position regarding a newly created structure outside of the UN for monitoring and enforcement. Most regard this issue as one of the most significant impediments to a political agreement at COP-15.
Don't Yank the Tariff Provisions from the House Climate Change Bill
President Obama deserves a share of the credit for the historic vote by the House June 26 to pass the first climate change bill. The bill is far from perfect, but it is an important step in the right direction. In comments following the House vote, however, President Obama took a step in the wrong direction. In urging the Senate to swiftly pass their counterpart to the House bill, President Obama raised questions about a provision that would impose a tariff on the import of goods from countries where the cost of such good benefits from weaker climate change laws:
"At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there….I think we're going to have to do a careful analysis to determine whether the prospects of tariffs are necessary, given all the other stuff that was done and had been negotiated on behalf of energy-intensive industries."
Removing the tariff provision from the bill would give its opponents a strong argument for its defeat. Opponents argue that by imposing what they classify as an exorbitant energy tax on products such as steel, cement and chemicals the climate bill would simply force manufacturers to shift production to foreign countries with more favorable energy costs, resulting in no net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions AND loss of jobs in the US.
This is a potent argument which, if left unanswered, could doom the bill in the Senate. Although President Obama suggested that there may be better alternatives to the "protectionist" provision in the House bill he did not elaborate on them. One alternative that has received some favorable press is the so-called "sectoral approach" in which certain energy-intensive industries seek to reach agreement on a global standard for GHG emissions from facilities in the sector.
Although the sectoral approach is arguably sound in principle, the fear is that in practice the affected sectors would be able to push through weak standards which undermine the battle against global warming. It is almost like begging the fox to guard the henhouse. Another alternative would allow the United States to scrap its cap-and-trade system if China and India do not adopt similar programs. This avoids the fox/henhouse problem, but creates a bigger one: in effect, it cedes to foreign countries the decision of whether WE should combat climate change. The House approach avoids both problems, and should be followed in the Senate.
Auto Mileage and Carbon Emissions Agreement: Harbinger of Good Things to Come?
This week, President Obama announced a plan to increase national automobile emissions and mileage standards for cars and trucks in the United States starting in 2012. If it survives a public review process, this agreement will create a single new national standard for the US car and light truck fleets that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016 than it is today -- an average 35.5 miles per gallon (as reported in the NY Times).
The announcement resonates loudly in national climate change policy, because it marks the first federal regulatory standard for carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. It will also mean federal regulation of a sector (transportation) which accounts for a third of the nation’s carbon emissions.
The announcement also resonates in the energy community, since President Obama predicted that as result of the agreement, demand for oil would fall by 1.8 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold over the next five years.
It is also significant in the broader national quest for overall air quality improvements because per-mile-traveled particulate, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide emissions will drop as well.
For automakers, the agreement is also a much-needed win. They need no longer fear multiple standards across the states of the nation. The autos will obtain long sought-after certainty over the regulatory future of their businesses.
Dave McCurdy, head of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said:
What's significant about the announcement is it launches a new beginning, an era of cooperation. The President has succeeded in bringing three regulatory bodies, 15 states, a dozen automakers and many environmental groups to the table. We're all agreeing to work together on a National Program.
Some may see the agreement as a long-overdue revival of regulatory negotiation, a means of reaching agreement that last saw effective use in the 1980s. But the times, they are a-changing, and others see an entire new consensus-based approach to reaching accords on important issues of public policy. The President and the key participants managed to bring together and obtain the “yesses” of a remarkable group of historic adversaries, including those who were locked in litigation that for the most part now will be dismissed if the agreement holds.
One wonders if President Obama sensed this opportunity from his administration’s earliest days. One of the EPA’s first public actions was to announce a review California’s request for a Clean Air Act waiver to allow it to pursue stricter limits on tailpipe emissions. In his remarks, Obama suggested that it was the prospect of complying with and enforcing of a patchwork of state and federal regulations that ultimately brought the parties to the table.
Another fact that amazes me: they reached this deal without a word leaking to the press.
Finally, keep in mind that even if the agreement holds in the concept stage, the fine print is yet to come. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation will have to propose rules to implement the agreement, and anyone will be able to comment then. Will the consensus survive that process? In one notorious “reg neg” of the early 90s, corn ethanol interests first agreed on rules for implementing the renewable fuels standard of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act. Later, they reneged and the rulemaking turned much more difficult and contentious.
Black Carbon Steps from the Shadows as a Major Climate Culprit Worldwide
You may have recently heard about “black carbon” and wondered if it was a climate epithet, a word reversal in a familiar product (carbon black), or simply redundant (carbon is black). But in fact “black” or elemental carbon is emerging as a particularly potent greenhouse agent that needs to be reckoned with on its own terms with special measures to prevent releases to the atmosphere. Recent studies suggest that black carbon emissions, which are not yet controlled by the Kyoto or Montreal Protocols, are the second largest contributor to global warming (after carbon dioxide) and that reducing them may be the fastest strategy for slowing climate change. Black carbon emissions are greatest from developing countries, a trend which is expected to increase, but the US and other developed nations can also do much more to address the problem. Reducing black carbon emissions offers a nearly instant return in lowering the greenhouse effect, because black carbon particles remain airborne for weeks while carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for more than a century (see footnote 24 of IGSD October 2008 Climate Briefing).
Recent studies and public testimony by scientists cited in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report suggest that emissions from black carbon are the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide emissions and that reducing these emissions may be the fastest strategy for slowing climate change. Soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide. Also recent studies suggest that black carbon plays a large role in the retreat of arctic sea ice and Himalayan glaciers. Black carbon warms the planet by absorbing heat in the atmosphere and by reducing albedo, a measure of the earth’s ability to reflect sunlight, when deposited on snow and ice. The effect is worse than imagined only months ago. Further, mitigation would have immediate health benefits in addition to the long term effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The largest sources of black carbon are Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Between 25 and 35 percent of black carbon in the global atmosphere comes from China and India when it is emitted from the burning of wood and cow dung in household cooking and through the use of coal to heat homes. Emissions from China doubled between 2000 and 2006. The problem is not just a question of climate forcing. The inhalation of smoke during indoor cooking has been linked to the deaths of an estimated 400,000 women and children in south and east Asia. Advocates for black carbon controls have pointed out that well-tested existing technologies used by developed countries, such as clean diesel and clean coal, could be transferred to developing countries to help reduce their black carbon emissions. A later blog will address an ancient but promising technology that offers promise worldwide for controlling black carbon releases -- bio-char.
But developing nations are not the only significant sources. Countries in Europe and elsewhere that rely heavily on diesel fuel for transportation also contribute large amounts. Advocates for stronger soot controls in developed nations say that per capita emissions of black carbon from the United States and some European countries are still comparable to those from south Asia and east Asia.
The US emits about 21 percent of the world’s CO2, and only 6.1 percent of the world’s soot, but the US and the European Union could further reduce their black carbon emissions by accelerating implementation and sharpening the focus of existing air quality laws and regulations and by supporting the adoption of pending International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations. Existing regulations also could be expanded to increase the use of clean diesel and clean coal technologies and to develop second-generation technologies. Senator Hilary Clinton of New York, together with Senators Carper and Kerry, has introduced a bill that would require the US Environmental Protection Agency to study black carbon emissions toward identifying US and global black carbon emissions inventories and levels, the science and extent of black carbon climate impacts including appropriate metrics, and best technology to control emissions. The House had already hosted a hearing a year ago on the issue.
In the US, black carbon is indirectly regulated as a component of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) under the Clean Air Act. Black carbon constitutes 5-10 percent of PM 2.5 on an annual average basis, but can be much higher on particular days. For example, days affected by fire events show higher levels of black carbon than the annual average. Gasoline combustion, diesels, and fire are the major US sources. (Click here for more info on the composition of PM 2.5). Fine particulate matter affects millions of people who live in vehicle-rich cities and suburbs or near industrial smokestacks. Prolonged exposure to tiny particles up 1/30th the size of a human hair can cause serious respiratory problems such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, and heart attacks.
Black carbon may be indirectly reduced soon in the US because EPA has put more than 215 counties on notice -- including much of the Eastern Seaboard from New York to Washington, as well as Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco -- that they are unlikely to meet the national standard for fine particulates. The proposed designations cover metro areas in 25 states and could have major implications for economic growth and transportation planning across the country. Steps to control PM 2.5 include tightening pollution controls for cars, trucks, and non-road engines used for construction. Such programs can be expensive to design and implement, and some critics have argued that meeting such standards comes at the expense of economic growth. But now controlling black carbon in PM 2.5 adds a climate benefit to what otherwise has been viewed as primarily a cardiovascular and pulmonary health issue.
The debate over use of the Clean Air Act for climate management purposes now includes whether black carbon is a pollutant subject to direct CAA regulation. If CO2 is a CAA pollutant, why would black carbon be treated any differently? Senator Obama has said that he would urge use of the CAA tools if Congress does not promptly enact climate legislation. Senator McCain's representatives have said that the Senator would be “reluctant” to use them, while “Sen. Obama would not hesitate to use them as necessary to achieve climate goals,” according to his energy spokesman Elgie Holstein.
Click here for the IGSD’s August 2008 Climate Briefing.
Click here for additional information on inventories of US black carbon.
Click here for more information on black carbon and vehicles in the US.
Click here for basic background information on black carbon.
Click here for an August 2008 report from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences elevating the issue of black carbon.
