As Copenhagen prepares for December, a strange combination of Christmas lights, clean energy expos, evergreen wreaths, and security barriers have begun to crop up around the city. It's an exciting time to be in Copenhagen reflecting on a year of intense pressure, activity, and engagement around the world.

Over the past several months (and years), a growing movement has coalesced around the conference here next month and it's hard to believe it's finally almost here. In June, the sleepy German town of Bonn saw hundreds of activists descend in the rain upon the normally quiet Subsidiary Bodies negotiations at the UNFCCC's home. Thousands around the world participated in the September 21 Global Wakeup Call. Then in Bangkok in October thousands marched outside the UNESCAP building calling for climate action. October 24th saw the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet's history, spearheaded by 350.org, with over 5,000 events in 181 countries around the world.

And now, rumors of tens of thousands are looming on Copenhagen, including, by my count so far, at least 15 Heads of State who have committed to attending the talks (although Yvo de Boer said in Barcelona that he expects at least 40). [UPDATE: The AP is reporting a Danish official has suggested 65 Heads of State are planning on attending as of Sunday the 22nd of November.]

The last time I wrote, it was a dark and gloomy day in Copenhagen. But today was beautiful -- the sun was out, the weather warm, and the bustle on the street was electric.

The last time I wrote, I was convincing myself, and others, that all was not lost for December. Now, on this bright and sunny day, I'm as convinced as ever that world leaders can achieve an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen if they try.

Even in the past week, we've seen movement around the world. The Alliance of Small Island states continue to raise its collective voice of conscience against a weak outcome in Copenhagen. We've heard that the Chinese would be willing to bring a number to the table in Copenhagen. We've seen South Korea confirm a voluntary emissions reduction target of 30 percent below business as usual by 2020. The European Union has said that it would like a binding agreement in Copenhagen. France and Brazil came out with a "climate bible" -- an agreement between two nations to work together on climate change. This follows Brazil's previous announcement of voluntary emissions cuts of 36-39% by 2020 below business as usual in a "political gesture" some weeks ago.

Even the Danish government, which had caused so many hearts to sink with its proposal of a "politically binding" outcome in Copenhagen, seemed to change its tune ... if only just a bit. The Danish Minister for Climate and Energy, Connie Hedegaard (who will chair the negotiations in December), spoke in a press briefing at the close of the preparatory meeting last week, assuring the world that her aim is a legally binding outcome from the negotiations.

Finally, eyes continue to focus on the U.S. In the joint announcement between the U.S. and China, President Obama indicated his team could bring further commitments to the table in Copenhagen. As Copenhagen creeps towards December, the question remains, will Obama come to Copenhagen? And if so, will he come bearing gifts ... or a lump of coal?

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

The lecture was only a few hours away. Chuck Norris was pitching his new book on post at the same hour. In desperation, I turned to Facebook. “I've got just 50 minutes with the cadets at West Point today to talk water, conflict, and cooperation. What are the most compelling examples you would use to make both hard security and human security points, both threat and opportunity points? I ask in part because it is proving harder to decide what to leave out than what to put in!”

Within seconds, experts from the Departments of State and Energy, USAID, and National Geographic responded with examples, including the Tibetan plateau and glacial melt, the lower Jordan River, and more. I used these cases and others to break through to an audience that included both those skeptical of “treehugger” issues and those eager to learn. The map of Chinese current and planned hydro projects produced audible gasps and wide eyes among the class of future officers.

While at West Point, colleague Meaghan Parker and I met with geography faculty to better understand how and what they are teaching on environmental security and demographic security. The professors on the banks of the Hudson face similar challenges to their non-military brethren; today’s students have shorter attention spans and lack experience conducting in-depth research (or getting beyond Google).

But some challenges are unique to the service academies: isolation from academic peers; the need to make sure the material is relevant to future military leaders; and most of all, the physical and mental demands on cadets’ time placed by army training. I saw it as a sign of success that I only had three stand up during my lecture, the military’s sanctioned way to keep yourself awake in class. (LTC Lou Rios USAF, one of the faculty members we met with, wrote about teaching environmental security at West Point previously on New Security Beat.)

Video, blogs, and other new media seem like a way to bridge some of these gaps. We’re especially excited that the cadets in at least three courses will be using the New Security Beat as part of their classes by reading posts, commenting, and proposing a post on a topic of their choosing. We’re looking forward to a cadet joining us next summer for internship with ECSP.

All of these outreach efforts are part of our strategy to both understand how all types of actors—including future army officers—come to understand environment and security links while providing insights and analysis to that same diverse group.

Related Links:

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

The Climate Post: You heard it here first—Copenhagen a success

Tackling population rise would fight climate change

First things first: A week of anticlimaxes saw President Barack Obama conducting a less-than-exuberant swing through China, the international community conceding a binding climate treaty at the COP-15 negotiations in Copenhagen, and U.S. lawmakers postponing to the spring of 2010 consideration of climate policy -- even as talk of a legislative "plan B" surfaced. A Wall Street Journal piece on Obama's China visit characterizes how hemmed in the president is abroad and at home, balancing as complex a portfolio as any new president has faced in a century, at least.

Obama left China with seven commitments to work more closely on energy matters, particularly the development of an inventory for China's greenhouse gas emissions. This technical cooperation may have a political echo in Washington, where Senate Democrats making up their minds about climate change policy have expressed concern that the world's leading CO2 producer, China, is unable to quantify its pollution. A close read of language in the U.S.-China agreement reveals "subtle but important shift" in climate positions, writes NRDC's Jake Schmidt.

The call is (also) coming from inside the house: Other international voices sound increasingly nonplussed with U.S. performance in the global climate arena. Critics blame Obama, who personifies America abroad, for what they see as a continuation of President George W. Bush's policies against Kyoto-style international climate agreements. The German newsweekly Spiegel publishes a deeply critical view of Obama's young presidency. It echoes voices heard elsewhere, voices Climate Post heard a little bit in India last month and that he documented in a post this week over at the New York Times' DotEarth blog. The Catch-22: The U.S.'s critics abroad feel that their complaints will not be heard here, since, as Christian Schwägerl charges in Spiegel, "Americans do not look beyond their own borders."

Naomi Klein, the activist, globalization skeptic, and writer, provides a fine example in Rolling Stone of how some Americans do not look within their own borders. Klein's breathless call for climate reparations paid by rich nations to poor, vulnerable nations overlooks major and minor "real-world" issues, beginning with which bank account -- previously unrevealed -- is she writing her checks from? The piece makes a fine bookend with George Will's latest effort, as naive as Will's piece is ignorant. (Both writers seem equally angry.)

Thomas Friedman thumps opponents of measures to reduce national emissions of heat-trapping gases, condensing observations of his recent book into his New York Times column.

You heard it here first!: The COP-15 talks in Copenhagen were a cautious success. After months of increasingly dour headlines, 15,000 people (18 of them from the Nicholas Institute and Nicholas School) will have descended three weeks from now on this elegant Scandinavian capital and will have reached a political agreement, in a spirit of collaboration and goodwill that will be expected to lead to a binding legal treaty next year. Whatever will have happened in Copenhagen to make it a success -- after all, we just don't know -- it's likely that high-profile attendees will trumpet its successes, however defined. There has been too much anticipation, too much pre-game show, too many resources spent, to not produce something tangible, or at least argue that something tangible was produced. Even if it receives headlines similar in tone to Obama's China trip.

A casual observer to the now year-long run-up to next month's talks in Copenhagen might be forgiven for thinking that a treaty is an end in itself. The treaty is a means by which countries force themselves and each other to transform their economies toward non-polluting energy systems. The Guardian lassoes some top thinkers on climate policy, who emphasize the urgency to inject capital into energy technologies that do not emit heat-trapping gases. The public emphasis on a deal next month has overshadowed this urgency, the Guardian contents, and, unless investment picks up, nations will continue to build out fossil-fuel powered 20th-century-style infrastructure projects.

Without national or international guidance, businesses already working toward a clean tech economy face considerable uncertainty. Players in the $126 billion global carbon market -- concentrated in the European Union's emissions trading scheme -- are particularly exposed. The impetus for that market came after the Kyoto Protocol. Its 2012 expiration date threatens investments, money, and projects tied up in the system. Developing nations, particularly China and India, have made up to hundreds of millions of dollars executing carbon-reduction projects that generate emission credits that rich nations use to "offset" their pollution. The global market for carbon offsets traded under the current regime adds up to $6.5 billion.

The push for "green jobs" continues, even without an international mandate. Americans in green jobs needn't work for U.S. companies, it turns out. With Obama in China, Suntech, the world's largest maker of solar panels, announced it would build a factory near Phoenix. The Chinese company's move may ease some lawmakers' concerns that less expensive labor costs will push clean-energy manufacturing jobs overseas, BusinessWeek reports. That the profit motive is drawing a Chinese solar giant to the U.S. should fuel the ongoing confusion about whether solar energy is affordable or not.

Roger Pielke Jr, the University of Colorado Boulder political scientist who plays Ugolino to more liberal climate bloggers' Ruggieri (or vice versa), reminds us with a picture, and his own quick romp through the headlines, what's happening, and keeps happening, far beneath lofty discussions and aspirations of Copenhagen.

A day in the life: Washington's mystique might emerge in the contrast between the monumental things that occur here (and that are expected to but don't), and the patient, gradual, and frequently silent steps it takes to achieve them. It takes a piece like Barry Yeoman's profile of Tim Profeta, director of the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions (and Climate Post's "publisher") to add depth to the generally superficial headlines about events in Washington. The piece, just published in Duke magazine, lays out with dimension and color the Institute's mission and the way we do the things we do.

Climate Post will be off next week for Thanksgiving and will return Dec. 3.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

As resurrections go, it was a speedy one. On Monday, much of the world's media declared that the chances of a worthwhile deal being reached at next month's international climate talks were as dead as the proverbial dodo. By Tuesday, however, the conjectured corpse was clearly still alive, if not exactly kicking.

President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao were quick to insist this week that their two nations are committed to making Copenhagen a success.  Above, the two leaders together at a reception before the formal state dinner at Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China on Nov. 17, 2009.Photo: White HouseThe cause of the premature obituaries were weekend statements by President Barack Obama and Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen that it would not be possible to finalize a full, legally binding treaty when diplomats from around the world gather in Copenhagen starting Dec. 7. This, we were told, would turn the meeting into little more than a talking shop, while the real negotiations were postponed until later.

But as Grist readers already know, the fact that the conference will not produce a full-blown treaty is old news. I reported it here two weeks ago, together with quotes to that effect from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the United Nations' top climate official, Yvo de Boer.

The excruciating slowness of the U.N. negotiating process (which, after a combined eight weeks of formal talks in three cities starting last spring, still failed to produce a final negotiating text) and the recalcitrance of the U.S. Senate in passing a climate bill long ago assured it would be impossible to tie up a full treaty in Copenhagen.

My article also explored the alternative set out by Rasmussen at the weekend -- also already suggested by Merkel and de Boer -- of a "political" agreement, which would later be formalized in a treaty. Far from being a talking shop, the Copenhagen conference would be expected to agree on all the main elements of a climate pact, including big greenhouse gas emission cuts by rich countries, sharp reductions in the rate of growth of emissions in rapidly industrializing ones, and funding to help meet the vast costs faced by poor countries in controlling their own emissions and adapting to the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change.

Rasmussen spelled this out in his statement, though it was little reported, making it clear that the conference must reach a "binding" deal that is "precise on specific commitments" and "provides for immediate action." He went on: "We cannot do half a deal in Copenhagen and postpone the rest till later. We need the commitments. We need the figures. We need the action."

By Tuesday evening, it was clear that such a deal was still a possibility. Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao, who as the leaders of the world's two greatest polluters will do more than anyone to determine whether the conference succeeds or fails, agreed to press for it. "Our aim," said Obama, echoing Rasmussen's words, "is not a partial accord or a political declaration but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations and has an immediate operational effect."

The two leaders agreed that "transitioning to a low-carbon economy is an opportunity to promote continued economic growth and sustainable development in all countries" and struck deals to launch "a joint energy efficiency action plan and a partnership on renewable energy and the electric power grid" -- steps welcomed by Timothy Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, who has put much effort into building links between the two countries.

At the same time, environment ministers from 40 key countries -- assembled this week for a two-day preparatory meeting in Copenhagen -- made good progress towards a political agreement. "My feeling is that it looks better today than when we started meeting," said Danish Energy and Climate Change Minister Connie Hedegaard, when the talks ended on Tuesday evening. And indeed -- though there is still a very long way to go -- an agreement is marginally closer than before the weekend alarm.

Much depends on whether the U.S. Senate can demonstrate real progress on a climate bill that would cap and gradually lower America's greenhouse gas emissions. The hope is that enough will be achieved by senators over the next few weeks to enable Obama to go to Copenhagen with a provisional offer of emission reductions, pending passage of the legislation in early 2010. That, in turn, would make international agreement possible.

But time is short. If the Senate ties Obama's hands, it will be hard to salvage much in Copenhagen; the obituaries will then be due. As Achim Steiner, the executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, put it this week, there remains an "extremely high" risk of continuing deadlock.

If Obama assures the conference that the U.S. Congress will finalize a climate bill, the legislation would have to be passed by the end of spring, since the American midterm elections will be approaching fast. Failure to pass a bill by then would be disastrous.

It is all very difficult. But there is a chance that, with luck and skill, a climate-saving deal can be reached. And while far from ideal, the hope that a deal is still salvageable is a lot better than the doom that was so widely pronounced at the start of the week.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

China and the U.S. announced on Tuesday a Joint Statement (available here) and a package of agreed actions on clean energy. This meeting between these two countries that account for around 40 percent of the world's CO2 emissions from fossil fuels couldn't come at a more critical time in efforts to secure a strong international agreement to address global warming pollution (as I discussed here).

We didn't expect big announcements on the critical issues of specific emissions reduction commitments from the two countries (hopefully that will be outlined in the coming months), but the U.S. and China did agree to some very positive shifts on a couple of fronts. These were subtle, but important, changes in the Chinese position that has occurred over the last year. Having President Obama talking about global warming with China on such frequency and at such a high-level has definitely helped with this shift.

Here are the headlines from the climate portions of the Joint Statement that struck me. (The NRDC China Program team will also provide some perspectives on the agreed package of actions on clean energy, available here).

1. Nature of the Copenhagen outcome.

There was a little buzz over the weekend, when 19 countries reportedly agreed that they would seek a framework in Copenhagen that agrees to "one agreement, two steps" (as I discussed here). Here is what the Joint U.S.-China Statement had to say on that front:

So while the U.S. and China both recognized the challenge of finalizing the legal agreement in Copenhagen (as was recognized this weekend and that I discussed here), they did stress that the agreement could be more than just a mere piece of paper that has no meaning. Rather, if such an agreement were reached in Copenhagen with the elements that they stressed, it could lead to real commitments to actions that reduce emissions while the full legal agreement is finalized. So as I said before: stay tuned as I expect we'll have an interesting two-week ride in Copenhagen.

2. Both countries will take mitigation commitments and "stand behind them".

Here is what they had to say on this important front: "The United States and China ... resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world's ability to combat climate change" [emphasis added].

While Chinese President Hu Jintao announced in September that China would take further actions to address their global warming pollution, including outlining an effort to reduce the overall global warming pollution intensity of their economy (as I discussed here and my colleague discussed here), this announcement codifies that this commitment will be forthcoming. And given that they also agreed that the Copenhagen Agreement should include "mitigation actions of developing countries," it now appears clear that the Chinese will commit to those actions in an international agreement. It wasn't clear before whether China would just have those as domestic commitments or whether they would also translate them into international commitments (as I discussed here) so this is a positive change.

And they also announced that:

"The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments" [emphasis added].

This is a shift from the previous Chinese position in that they weren't willing to "open up their books and defend them" in the same way that the U.S. would (as I discussed here).

So that means that China and the U.S. agreed that they would both have to commit to these emissions reduction actions internationally and they would be held accountable for them. Both of these signal a subtle, but important shift that will help make China more accountable to meet their commitments.

3. Both countries actions to reduce emissions will be fully transparent.

Both sides agreed that the international agreement should: "...provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology and capacity building support" [emphasis added].

This didn't go as far as we ultimately need on the transparency of actions, but the Chinese did move from their previous position. The Chinese have been saying before that they wouldn't subject all their actions to international scrutiny. And now they are at least saying that those actions would need to be done with "full transparency". And as a part of this agreement they signed a Memorandum of Cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States and the National Development and Reform Commission of China and to Build Capacity to Address Climate Change. As my colleague has discussed (see here) there are steps that would need to be taken to "build confidence on U.S.-China climate actions." Hopefully this shift and cooperation agreement will provide further flesh to the important "transparency" issue of Chinese and U.S. actions.

-----

In addition to these overarching shifts, the two sides did also agree to a set of joint actions that will hopefully produce tangible reductions in global warming pollution and deployment of clean energy.

So while the U.S. and China didn't agree to the big ticket items -- the specific emissions reductions objectives -- which we ultimately need them to commit to, there were some important shifts in the Chinese position.

Hopefully we'll see even more shifts in the coming couple of weeks (and months). The shifts from these two key countries have a very big impact on the overall stability of the international efforts to address global warming.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Cross-posted from Climate Progress. Co-written by Julian L. Wong of the Center for American Progress.

Obama and President Hu Jintao together at a reception before the formal state dinner in Beijing.Photo: whitehouse.govTuesday, a comprehensive plan for U.S.-China cooperation on clean energy and climate change was announced in Beijing by President Obama and President Hu Jintao. The overall plan is much more ambitious in scope and depth than we had anticipated and contains directives to create various institutions and programs addressing a wide array of cooperation on clean-energy technologies and capacity building, including very important efforts on helping China build a robust, transparent, and accurate inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions.

These efforts include cooperation in the following areas:

1. Greenhouse gas inventory. A memorandum of cooperation between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and China's National Development and Reform Commission sets out avenues for collaboration on capacity building in climate change, with an initial focus on helping China to develop a robust, transparent, and accurate greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

2. Joint clean energy research center. Originally announced this July, more details were provided on the joint center that will "facilitate joint research and development of clean energy technologies by teams of scientists and engineers from the United States and China, as well as serve as a clearinghouse to help researchers in each country."  Financial support from public and private sources of at least $150 million over five years, split evenly between the two countries, will be provided.  The Center's research will initially focus on building energy efficiency, clean coal including carbon capture and storage, and clean vehicles. (Factsheet)

3. Electric vehicles. Those initiatives will "include joint standards development, demonstration projects in more than a dozen cities, technical roadmapping and public education projects."  (Factsheet)

4. Energy efficiency. Building on the Ten Year Framework on Energy and Environment Cooperation, government officials of both countries will "work together and with the private sector to develop energy efficient building codes and rating systems, benchmark industrial energy efficiency, train building inspectors and energy efficiency auditors for industrial facilities, harmonize test procedures and performance metrics for energy efficient consumer products, [and] exchange best practices in energy efficient labeling systems." (Factsheet)

5. Renewable energy. The two countries will develop roadmaps for wide-spread renewable energy deployment in both countries.  The Partnership will also provide technical and analytical resources to states and regions in both countries to support renewable energy deployment and will facilitate state-to-state and region-to-region partnerships to share experience and best practices.  (Factsheet)

6. 21st century coal. The two countries will "launch a program of technical cooperation to bring teams of U.S. and Chinese scientists and engineers together in developing clean coal and carbon capture and storage technologies." The Presidents also welcomed a package of announcements on public-private partnerships in advanced coal technologies. (Factsheet)

7. Shale gas. Under a new Shale Gas Initiative, the U.S. and China will "use experience gained in the United States to assess China's shale gas potential, promote environmentally-sustainable development of shale gas resources, conduct joint technical studies to accelerate development of shale gas resources in China, and promote shale gas investment in China through the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum, study tours, and workshops." (Factsheet)

8. Nuclear. The two countries reaffirmed the goals of the recently-concluded Third Executive Committee Meeting of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to promote the peaceful use of civilian nuclear energy, and " agreed to consult with one another in order to explore such approaches-including assurance of fuel supply and cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel management so that countries can access peaceful nuclear power while minimizing the risks of proliferation."

9. Public-private partnerships on clean energy. A new U.S.-China Energy Cooperation Program (ECP) will "leverage private sector resources for project development work in China across a broad array of clean energy projects, to the benefit of both nations."  The ECP, consisting of at least 22 founding member companies, will work on collaborative projects in renewable energy, smart grid, clean transportation, green building, clean coal, combined heat and power, and energy efficiency.

In a joint statement, Obama and Jintao agreed on a common approach to achieve a successful outcome in international climate negotiations (emphasis added in bold):

Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world's ability to combat climate change. The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.

In this context both sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries. The outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries, promote technology development, dissemination and transfer, pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, promote steps to preserve and enhance forests, and provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology, and capacity building support.

Taken together, these commitments and statements represent an important step forward towards agreeing on a protocol for accurate accounting and verification of China's policies for achieving the necessary emissions reductions that science requires. They will also hopefully start to satisfy those skeptical that China will agree to a protocol for accurate accounting and verification of its impressive array of policies for achieving emissions reductions.

The announcements also suggest that the United States and China are on the same page when it comes to both the necessity of aggressively moving forward on an affirmative agenda to reduce carbon pollution and create millions of new clean energy jobs. The agreement contains concrete measures for sustained and meaningful collaboration and demonstrates that the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases are prepared to move beyond the tired narrative of developed versus developing country responsibilities on climate action toward a more "positive, cooperative, and comprehensive" relationship on clean energy and climate change.

We hope that the upcoming United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen will follow this example and focus as much on bottom-up technological strategies for achieving real reductions in emissions as it will on top-down targets for carbon caps.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday he would travel to Copenhagen next month if a climate summit is on the verge of a framework deal and his presence there will make a difference in clinching it ...

“If I am confident that all of the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge then certainly that’s something that I will do,” Obama told Reuters in an interview.

I had written back on Oct. 9, after the Nobel Peace Prize announcement, that it looks like Obama will be going to Copenhagen after all.

The only question is whether there will be enough progress to motivate him to come.  Reuters notes that the President remains optimistic in spite of the too-slow movement in the Senate:

Obama, who has faced resistance from opposition Republicans and even some fellow Democrats to setting caps on greenhouse gas emissions, acknowledged that the U.S. Senate would not pass climate change legislation before Copenhagen.

Delays in the U.S. Congress have rankled European allies and added to questions about how significant the deal that emerges from Copenhagen will ultimately be.

But Obama insisted he remained optimistic that the Dec. 7-18 summit could yield a “framework” agreement.

“I think the question is can we create a set of principles, building blocks, that allow for ongoing and continuing progress on the issue and that’s something I’m confident we can achieve,” he said.

Finally, it has been obvious for a while that a framework deal between the U.S. and China was key to enabling both domestic and international action (see "Does a serious bill need action from China?").  The Administration has been pursuing it aggressively for a while (see "Exclusive: Have China and the U.S. been holding secret talks aimed at a climate deal this fall?").

Now the President has publicly stated he expected such a framework deal to be achieved this month:

Obama made clear he considers his talks with Chinese leaders during an Asia tour later this month to be crucial in clearing remaining obstacles to some kind of accord.

“The key now is for the United States and China, the two largest emitters in the world, is to be able to come up with a framework that, along with other big emitters like the Europeans and those countries that are projected to be large emitters in the future, like India, can all buy into,” he said.

“I remain optimistic that between now and Copenhagen that we can arrive at that framework,” he added.

If he succeeds, then I do think Copenhagen will achieve what is needed to advance the prospects for international deal, the President will come and a global framework will be agreed to -- with a follow-on global meeting set for six months later -- then the U.S. Senate and then the entire Congress will pass a climate bill, and we will finalize the international agreement by the end of next year.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

A version of this post was originally published on the website of the Center for Public Integrity and is reposted on Grist with CPI's kind permission.

-----

It is said that borders don't matter to the atmosphere -- all nations have to work together to tackle the problem of climate change.

But the forces that seek to block that effort likewise know no national boundaries. They're rallying coal miners in Appalachia, stirring up aluminum workers in Australia, and slowing renewable energy in China. They're using their exalted position in Indian society to discourage the government from making international commitments. In Brazil, they're not giving up free rein over rainforest land without a fight.

Their handiwork will be evident as negotiators from 192 nations gather in Copenhagen this December to forge the most important environmental treaty ever. There is no question negotiators face a daunting task: to reduce the pollution from the burning of oil, coal, and gas that has fueled economic development since the Industrial Revolution. But their difficult job has been made overwhelming by the tactics wielded the world over by powers rooted in the economy of the past.

In the United States, there has been the well-orchestrated rallying of "grassroots" opposition to climate legislation. Coal millionaire Don Blankenship, chief executive of Massey Energy, is an outlier in the public debate as a vigorous global warming denier.  But his message at a West Virginia rally he organized, that "environmental extremists and corporate America are both trying to destroy your jobs," is a real factor on Capitol Hill. ­­The Senate bill now in play has no hope of passage without winning votes in the economically struggling coal states and coal-dependent industrial Midwestern states.

The message is strikingly similar in an Australian port town known both as a gateway to the Great Barrier Reef and a smokestack industry haven. Russian aluminum billionaire Oleg Deripaska, with a big stake in a refinery there, has lobbyists battling that nation's climate change plan as "destructive for jobs, destructive for new and existing investment." Such arguments helped defeat climate legislation in the Australia in August.  The business lobby has to be strong to slow climate policy in the hottest and driest inhabited continent, amid a years-long drought that contributed to deadly wildfires while it watches its climate-stressed tourism jewel, the Great Barrier Reef, on course to be "functionally extinct."

Pressure from old-line business interests may be more transparent in the United States and Australia, but forces also are determined to put on the brakes in the developing world. In China, for instance, wind turbines rising against Xinjian Province mountains have become an iconic image of a growing clean energy commitment. The government's goal is to achieve 20 percent renewable power by 2020, on the road to which it has doubled its installed wind power in each of the past four years. But China is also building coal plants so fast that it still gets just 1 percent of electricity from wind. Only one of the top 10 power companies-all state-owned enterprises-will meet the government's interim goal of 3 percent renewables by 2010. The power company executives, all quasi-governmental officials, have resisted proposals to help renewables by raising the price of coal. "There don't need to be ‘lobbyists' when discussions can happen directly through the Party," says Beijing-based political commentator Zhao Jing.

The approach is less subtle elsewhere. For example, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva recently offered to reduce the pace of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest -- one of the world's most important natural absorbers of carbon dioxide -- by 80 percent by 2020.  But Carlos Minc, Lula's environment minister, has faced an onslaught from the agriculture industry and its allies in elected office who balk at curbs on land use. One governor even threatened him with rape. "Many of those industries talk about zero deforestation, but when we press them they want to kill us," he says. "They call me to speak in the Senate or the House and I stay for five hours under a massacre. They're favorable to zero deforestation, provided it doesn't affect ... their own land."

The 1997 Kyoto treaty on climate change was marked by the decision that developing countries, where millions of people still lived without electricity, would not have binding obligations to reduce emissions. The burden of making cuts would fall first, instead, on the countries that grew wealthy in fossil-fueled economies. But the way Kyoto dealt with the rich-poor divide remains a political stumbling block in the United States. And since the International Energy Agency projects that 97 percent of the increase in global emissions between now and 2030 will come from developing countries, hopes have been high that negotiators of the successor treaty at Copenhagen would find a new way to bridge the gap between past and future engines of the climate problem.

But the principle that developing countries shouldn't have binding treaty obligations is dearly held by businesses that have the ear of government in those nations. In Delhi, India, Bharat Wakhlu, resident director of the powerful Tata Group -- that nation's largest business conglomerate with nearly 100 companies from power generation to autos -- says the company recognizes it has a role in addressing global warming. But, he added, "We believe in a ‘common but differentiated' approach, as we have to retain our competitiveness as well as ensure the planet is safe." In United Nations climate change lingo, "common but differentiated" is a shorthand reference to just one key differentiation -- only wealthy nations have obligations.

Juan C. Mata Sandoval, Mexico's top climate official and a negotiator for Copenhagen, is frank that one of the business lobby's chief concerns has been that his nation remain a "non-Annex 1" country-one without required emissions cuts. "We need to communicate with them constantly," he said. "The private sector also wants a voice and an opinion on how much is Mexico going to put on the table."

But in its own way, Mexico-like China, India, and Brazil -- is addressing climate change. Mexico has a national climate change plan with 86 specific goals it says will slow the growth of its carbon emissions. In absolute terms, Mexico's carbon output would still rise in the short term, but the country also has mapped out a long-term pathway to reduce its emissions-if it receives technical and financial support from developed countries.

Many see these types of developments as cause for optimism, even while conventional wisdom says the Copenhagen talks are on a path toward stalemate. "All the major economies are prepared to lay down significant low-carbon development plans," U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern said at a recent U.S.-India energy forum in Washington. "This is big news. It's never happened before. It's important stuff."

But that headline hasn't registered. Instead, the prevailing view is much more likely to be that of Brian Flannery, climate guru for energy giant ExxonMobil. "The only way to get to these low [emissions] levels is for the whole world to act together with common targets and a common carbon price," he said in an interview at run-up negotiations in Bangkok in October, where he was a registered observer for the International Chamber of Commerce. "We're not going to have everyone with the same target, the same price on carbon ... It does raise fundamental questions about whether the negotiating process should aspire to unachievable targets and work in an area of confrontation and dismay, or try to work towards achievable targets."

It's hard to tell how much lower the targets need to go for fossil-fuel stalwarts. No developed country has set an unconditional goal of reducing emissions 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 -- the short-term target the U.N.-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said would be necessary to achieve stabilization.

Given the power of industry lobbying, advocates for climate progress see their best hope as the growing number of businesses that support action. Dan Reicher, director of energy initiatives at Google, who was a member of President Barack Obama's transition team, is confident a plan can gain support in the U.S. Congress, if it has plenty of business flexibility and opportunity. But he is under no illusions it will be easy. At a recent conference in Washington on energy efficiency -- a pursuit Google aims to advance by providing people real-time home electricity information -- Reicher summed up the climate change politics succinctly: "This is going to be an epic, epic struggle."

This story is part of The Global Climate Change Lobby, a project by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. ICIJ correspondents Christina Larson in Beijing, Fernando Rodrigues and Marcelo Soares in Sao Paulo, Marian Wilkinson in Sydney, and Kate Willson in Bangkok contributed to this report.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

WASHINGTON - The United States will not agree to targets cutting greenhouse-gas emissions unless developing countries, particularly China, make similar moves, U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern warned Wednesday.

"No country holds the fate of the Earth in its hands more than China," Stern told the House Foreign Affairs Committee, weeks before a major climate change summit in Copenhagen.

Stern said new climate rules could include exemptions for developing countries to ensure that growth is not hampered, but emerging giants like China, India, and Brazil should pull their weight.

"What we do not agree with, though, is that we should commit to implement what we promise to do, while major developing countries make no commitment at all," he said.

His comments come as divisions between developed and developing countries threaten to prevent a Copenhagen climate deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

"We have 32 days left before the beginning of the Copenhagen conference and there is still a lot of work to do," Stern said.  "It's fair to say that the progress has been too slow, especially in the formal U.N. negotiating track. The developed-developing country divide that has run down the center of climate change discussions for the past 17 years is still, I'm afraid, alive and well."

But Stern said the situation was not all gloomy. "Paradoxically, while the negotiations are in a difficult state, it's also true that we are at a moment in history when more countries, including China, Brazil, and South Africa, are taking stronger actions or are poised to take stronger actions than ever before to combat climate change."

He addressed members of Congress as they debate a bill aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States, which many see as a prerequisite to a deal at Copenhagen.

Climate talks in Barcelona resumed on Wednesday after an angry spat, but negotiators admitted chances for sealing a hoped-for U.N. treaty on global warming by year's end were vanishing. 

On Tuesday, African countries boycotted the Barcelona climate talks. The bloc of 50 nations accused rich counterparts of backsliding on promises to curb human-made carbon emissions blamed for global warming, demanding they slash their pollution by at least 40 percent by 2020 over 1990 levels.

The squabble blocked talks among countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the cornerstone pact of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The twin-track process was launched in Bali in 2007 with the goal of concluding a post-2012 treaty among the UNFCCC's 192 parties at a Dec. 7-18 showdown in Copenhagen.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

In Chapter 7 of the recently released Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, Lester Brown lays out the Plan B goals for eradicating poverty and stabilizing population. Behind the scenes are a number of datasets and graphs that delve deeper into the trends discussed in the chapter. Here are some highlights from the Chapter 7 data:

World population has grown steadily over the past half century, increasing from 2.5 billion in 1950 to a projected 6.8 billion in 2009. The United Nations medium fertility level scenario projects that world population will grow to 9.2 billion in 2050. Their high projection takes the world to 10.5 billion in 2050. Under their low projection, which assumes rapid reductions in fertility rates, population peaks at just over 8 billion in 2042, then begins to decline.

Though life expectancies around the world have increased in the past half century, large discrepancies remain among different regions. Overall, world life expectancy increased from an average of 47 years in the mid-twentieth century to 68 years today. While life expectancy in 1950 hovered around 40 years in both Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, it has since increased far more rapidly in Asia, reaching 69 years, compared to 51 years in Sub-Saharan Africa. On a regional basis, the United States and Canada top the world with an average life expectancy of 79 years. Leading causes of death also vary widely across regions. In low-income countries, 18 percent of deaths are caused by infectious or parasitic diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and diarrheal diseases. Such diseases cause only 2.5 percent of deaths in high-income countries.

Some progress, however, has been made in fighting infectious disease in low-income countries. Thanks to an international vaccine campaign, the number of polio cases worldwide has dropped from close to 400,000 in 1987 to fewer than 2,000 in 2008.

On the economic front, China and India, the two most populous countries in the world, have experienced significant economic growth over the past several decades. However, while India’s gross domestic product (GDP) of $363 per person in 1990 just barely exceeded China’s, since then, China’s per capita GDP has grown 10-fold, while India’s has grown only 3-fold.

As countries have experienced economic growth, poverty rates have declined, though discrepancies again exist between countries and regions. Poverty rates in China have declined significantly, from 60 percent of the population in 1990 to 16 percent in 2007. Brazil, another success story, has reduced poverty rates by two-thirds, from 15 percent to 5 percent over the same period. India’s poverty rate has declined more modestly, from slightly over half the population in 1990 to 42 percent in 2007. Sub-Saharan Africa has also made slow progress, with poverty rates declining from 58 percent to 51 percent over the same period.

These data highlights show that while there have been some successes in the fight to reduce poverty and improve quality of life around the world, many challenges remain, particularly in the face of continuing population growth. You can download our datasets to learn more about the Plan B proposals for eradicating poverty and stabilizing population -- goals that play an important role in the mobilization to save civilization.

Related Links:

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Water, conflict, and security on the banks of the Hudson

Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh.Photo courtesy Matthew McDermott via Flickr India and China put aside a diplomatic spat to sign a five-year agreement Wednesday to cooperate on climate change leading up to crucial talks in Copenhagen.

The pact establishes a working group to exchange information on climate change ahead of a high-stakes summit in the Danish capital from Dec. 7-18 where nations will attempt to clinch a treaty to reduce carbon emissions.

"We regard India as a sincere, devoted friend and the MoU (memorandum of understanding) on climate change will take our cooperation on the issue to a new high," Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman and minister of China's National Development and Reforms Commission said at the signing in New Delhi.

India and China are among the world's biggest polluters and both have so far taken a united stand on rejecting binding emissions cuts, arguing that carbon caps will hinder them in their quest to alleviate poverty.

"There is no difference between the Indian and Chinese position (on climate change)," said Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, adding that their stance "fully protects and promotes the interests of developing nations."

The two nations traded jabs over a recent visit by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian border state at the core of a long-standing territorial dispute between the neighbors.

On Tuesday, China said it was "firmly opposed" to a planned visit by Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama to the state, while India has recently complained about Chinese involvement in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Dow Jones Newswires contributed to this report.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Last week in Congress, I met with three people who represent the three imperatives of our efforts against global warming. One represents the morality of the endeavor, another who received the Nobel Prize represents the science behind the economics, and the third is a well known gym rat who represents the way our democracy will answer the call. All three of them share one important trait -- they are all allies in the race to save the planet from the scourge of climate change.

That the Dalai Lama is an important voice in the climate change debate might strike some as surprising. After all, he has his hands full trying to protect the religious liberty of the Tibetan people. But in our meeting with him and Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the Capitol, he made it abundantly clear that he considers climate change a mortal threat to his people as well as to all of the one and a half billion people who depend upon the rivers flowing from the threatened glaciers of the Himalayas.

His depiction of the already dry Tibetan plateau made it clear why the increasing desertification and loss of glacier mass are without question a scientifically proven problem demanding an international response. The Dalai Lama is more than a spiritual leader, he is a man who esteems science, and he told us the science of this is clear to him. It was perhaps a coincidence that the week the Dalai Lama came to Washington, D.C. with his message about the science of climate change, several major American corporations quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of its refusal to recognize the scientific urgency of responding to this threat.

Why is it that a humble man wrapped in saffron robes living at the foot of the Himalayas gets it when so many allegedly technologically advanced corporate leaders do not? Fortunately, a large number of American business leaders are demanding action at an accelerating rate, and are willing to say goodbye to the retrograde forces of denial to make their point.

Just down the street from the Capitol, I met another leader who won the Nobel prize in physics. Dr. Steven Chu is leading a revamped and rejuvenated Department of Energy in its efforts to jump-start the U.S. economy with a burst of clean energy innovation. What he was doing theoretically to win the Nobel Prize, he is now doing practically by pumping out several billion dollars a month in loan guarantees and grants to help new business get on their feet in the biggest, boldest, most productive economic opportunity on our horizon -- the clean energy revolution.

Secretary Chu revealed that what made him willing to leave the comforts of academia to jump into the Capitol fray was the obvious need to save the planet from climate change. But now that he is in the post, he has taken to the task of building jobs and economic growth with a full recognition of another threat, that of the possibility that China will seize the initiative and come to dominate the world's market in providing clean energy technologies. Over lunch he emphasized his concern that China's investment of about $12 million a minute will allow it to gain an insurmountable lead over us in building new clean energy industries here.

Secretary Chu made a statement that might stun many Americans. He believes China has passed America in the field of high-tech manufacturing, not low-cost manufacturing. His statement revealed a new truth. We have historically feared the ability of China to beat us due to their low-wage rates. That fear now properly should be replaced by a concern about its ability to dominate high-tech manufacturing.

But Secretary Chu has an answer to that gloomy prospect: America can become a major provider to the world of clean energy products and services, if we play our cards right.

Now he is our ally in the great race to develop and deploy high-tech, clean energy technologies so that we can fulfill America's destiny to be the arsenal of clean energy to the world, just as we were the arsenal of democracy during World War II. It is a thrill to see the billions of dollars of investment that his department is now helping to promote, using the stimulus funds we provided in Congress, because this is the real-world application of the ideas we have promoted in our book Apollo's Fire: Igniting America's Clean Energy Economy. What were developing ideas and dreams in Apollo's Fire are now becoming hard realities.

The next day, I had the good fortune to meet another leader, this one a noted gym rat, a devotee of the game of basketball, who asked a me and few other congressmen to come over and play a few games of basketball at the former tennis court he had made over into hoops court at the White House. He was to be named the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize the next day, but that day President Barack Obama was most notable for his crossover dribble.

That move of his would surprise many for its effectiveness and his ability to get to the hoop and score. In this way his basketball game is just like his strategy on clean energy legislation -- his forthcoming score is going to surprise a lot of people. Until we passed our energy bill in the House, most said it couldn't be done. Now they are saying we cannot get a bill out of the Senate. Those folks are wrong, just like the folks were wrong who might have thought that Obama is too skinny to go to the hoop in traffic.

The dynamic is in our direction. All the relevant pressures are breaking our way. The resignations from the Chamber of Commerce, the increasingly clear science, the signs of bipartisanship emerging in the Senate, the increasingly clear picture that we need a new horizon for job creation to pull us out of the recession, the emergence of clean energy leadership in the business community from Detroit in electric autos, to the southwest in solar thermal technologies, to the Midwest in a host of new manufacturing opportunities, all point to a real chance for success this congress.

And don't you think that the belated realization that if Congress does not act with a scalpel, the EPA will act with a cudgel, has finally brought the sudden sense of revelation in many parts of the industrial community that they had better get in to the game instead of denying it exists?

This story about the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, and a presidential gym rat may sound like the set up of a pedestrian joke, but it represents a troika of forces that are on the cusp of the greatest industrial revolution yet. The Dalai Lama represents the morality of the necessity of change, the physicist represents the economic and scientific necessity of change, and the presidential gym rat represents the political possibility of a clean energy revolution. Together those three men I met last week are the embodiment of hope.

Victory is within our reach and they will help us find a way to seize it.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Leaders of the world's richest and fastest-growing economies are pushing for climate action even though their citizens have yet to wake up to the scale of the problem. Above, national leaders pose at the most recent G8 meeting last June in Italy. (White House Photo).Something unusual seems to be happening in the struggle to wake the world up to the reality of climate change. Almost unprecedented for an environmental issue, national leaders appear to be out ahead of public opinion in their respective countries.

President Obama has made climate action one of his top priorities after health care. Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, is spending much of his time trying to lay the grounds for a successful deal at December's climate conference in Copenhagen, while his chief rival, Conservative Party leader David Cameron (expected to succeed him after national elections in the spring) has made combatting global warming a signature issue.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, an unexpected environmentalist, is backing a carbon tax. The recently reelected German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has long been in the vanguard of moves to tackle climate change. The new Japanese prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, announced a stringent target for carbon cuts as one of his first acts after being elected last month. And Kevin Rudd, Australia's leader, has likewise radically overturned the obstructionist position of his predecessor.

Yet not one of these leaders has been under great pressure from their citizens to get serious about global warming. Though there is plenty of evidence that the majority of people in their countries accept climate change as a reality and think that something should be done to tackle it, there is little sign of an overwhelming demand for urgent action. Indeed, Gordon Brown and his ministers have often privately urged green NGOs to mobilize a mass campaign so as to give them the "political space" to act.

The paradox is even more marked in some rapidly industrializing countries in the developing world, where there is even less sign of popular pressure. Yet, Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon, is preparing a detailed offer to cut the growth in his country's carbon emissions to place on the table in Copenhagen. Hu Jintao, meanwhile, chose to make the first-ever speech by a Chinese president to the UN General Assembly at last month's climate summit.

Even Manmohan Singh, prime minister of the hitherto somewhat recalcitrant India, has ordered a more internationalist approach, telling ministers: "We may not have caused the problem, but we must be part of the solution."

This leadership of the leaders is welcome, but it has its limitations, most obviously in the United States where the constitutional separation of powers makes senators responding to their respective states' interests prove a powerful obstacle. But other countries are not immune from political inaction. The embattled Gordon Brown is getting no measurable political uplift from his work on climate change, while a sympathetic Conservative backbencher says that support for David Cameron's sincere concern is "paper thin" in his parliamentary party.

Yet the leaders surely need not be isolated, for despite a vocal skeptic minority, solid majorities in developed countries, at least, understand that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and requires action.

Eighty-five percent of Britons, polls show, are convinced that global warming is already a threat or will become so soon. Sixty-seven percent of Australians back their government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, even though it has run into trouble in parliament. And 83 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of Republicans in the United States have told pollsters that they believe global warning is already happening.

So why does this not turn into intense political pressure? One reason seems to be that much of the concern is still relatively soft and has not been translated into action even on a personal level. In the United States, one survey found that just 18 percent of respondents were alarmed enough to be doing something in their own lives to address climate change (not bad compared to the 7 percent of outright deniers, but far short of overwhelming). In Britain, only about a third of those concerned said that they thought they did enough personally to address global warming.

Experts point to two apparently contradictory, but not mutually exclusive, reasons for this. The first is that most people do not realize how serious things are, partly because the scientists have not been yelling. "For long we have been reluctant to spell out clearly the true implications of our analysis, instead couching out conclusions as challenging but politically palatable," says Prof. Kevin Anderson of Britain's blue-chip Tyndall Centre for Climate Change. Prof. Clive Hamilton of the Australian National University adds: "There is a widespread belief in the scientific community that the public cannot handle the truth, and so it has been pulling its punches."

The second reason is that people are not sure what they can do, or if any actions will actually make a difference. But there is mounting evidence that changes in behavior come when people get information from a trusted source on what needs to be done, and why it is worthwhile.

National leaders, of course, do know they can make a difference and have been briefed on the true extent of the climate crisis. That may explain why they have leapt out front on this issue. Their countrymen now urgently need to be brought up to speed.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

I had a dream about watching one of those high stakes poker games that you see on TV these days. There were bit players who you knew, from the few colored chips in front of them, would soon fold -- but the two “whales” at the table were Barack Obama and Hu Jintao. They each had so many chips on the table that you could barely see their cowboy shirts, but the purpose in their deadly stares could not be obscured, even by the dark black Ray Bans that shaded their eyes.

Obama wasted no time putting his ante smack in the middle of the green felt for all to see -- roll back greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% lower by 2050 (a statement made just 14 days after he was elected). Hu countered with a commitment to reduce energy consumption by 20%. Cards were dealt and the players tugged on their caps (Hu’s read “Made in China” and Obama’s proclaimed “Copenhagen," an obscure reference to either the failed Chicago bid for the 2016 Olympics or the upcoming climate talks).

The American Prez made the first bet -- adopting California’s greenhouse gas limits on tailpipes as the national standard. The crowd murmured as they realized this meant he was betting on executive power instead of Congress. The Chinese Prez countered with a commitment to replace 15% of dirty fossil fuels with clean energy, like wind and solar, by 2020. The crowd gasped audibly, realizing that this would double China’s current renewable energy supply.

Mr. Cool and Mr. Harmonious took and tossed cards, each betting bold plans to measure and register greenhouse gas sources; out-compete each other on a carbon market; and save more trees than anyone thought possible -- raising the stakes higher and higher, a pile of loot that made it hard for one to even see the other, let alone get a real read of their respective poker faces. Aides tugged at the sleeves of each man, whispering words of advice or caution, but the shrewd observer knew these competitors needed no guidance -- they were playing for keeps.

As often happens in dreams, reality and fantasy merged -- the closer I looked at the loot on the table, the more it resembled a blue, spinning globe. Were the Presidents playing for wealth, the future of a planet, or both?

I awoke with adrenaline pumping, the final result unknown, wondering if anyone else had distilled the words and deeds of these two world powerhouses into anything resembling my dream, or if most people had failed to see the high-stakes poker game that was going on in world capitals, UN speeches, and government announcements day by day. The media has largely failed to add up what’s going on in both countries already, which allows Hu and Obama to make these pledges, so how would average citizens or investors know?

Yes, carbon will soon have more than a penny-ante price, but if we play the game shrewdly at Copenhagen and beyond, this may be a game with many winners and a dream for a more sustainable, resilient economy come true.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

The Climate Post is a weekly roundup of climate news, produced by the The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University.

First Things First: The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a regulation that if approved would force the largest industrial emitters, including utilities, energy-intensive manufacturing, and refineries, to invest in the cleanest available technology for new projects or major renovations. The announcement’s potential importance overshadowed the nearly simultaneous official release of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, the latest “climate” bill that dare not speak its name. These twin events occur as global climate negotiators meet in Bangkok to shrink the disagreements now widely expected to eclipse a comprehensive deal in the Copenhagen talks in December.

Zero to 60 (Votes) in Seconds?: The EPA’s proposed regulation imposes restrictions on industrial facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. This threshold exempts small businesses and other concerned institutions (i.e., large new schools). The Los Angeles Times characterizes the move as a “warning shot to Congress” that the EPA is ready to move if lawmakers are not. The Washington Post lede looks outward, suggesting that the EPA action and Senate bill could influence the COP-15talks. The rules apply to as many as 7,500 industrial facilities, including 4,000 power plants, all of which under the Clean Air Act must meet requirements for emissions of a registered pollutant. They could take effect in 2011, although legal challenges are expected.

The Senate climate bill tweaks the legislation that barely passed the House of Representatives in late June. The bill, sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), would lead to 20 percent emissions cuts below 2005 levels by 2020. It girds against disruptive price swings in the market for greenhouse gas emission permits by letting the EPA auction credits to dampen demand. [For relevant Nicholas Institute policy material, click here.] The new bill also empowers a single federal agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, with preventing fraud and “excessive speculation,” an important consideration after last year’s Wall Street shenanigans and consequent chaos. The key Senate committee, Environment and Public Works, has internal rifts far more serious than anything in memory.

The government has been presenting a menu of options increasingly unattractive to private stakeholders opposing national climate policy. And lately it seems like one option is less desirable than the next, particularly to business interests. Enter the climate lawsuit: A court ruling of potentially great consequence snuck under many newspaper editors’ radar. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of eight states, New York City, and green NGOs, allowing lawsuits charging emissions from coal-burning utilities as a public nuisance.

Drip, Drip, Drip…: Three companies have quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in recent weeks, charging the influential voice of business with retarding the national climate debate. Nike’s exodus follows PNM Resources, PG&E’s, and Excelon’s, which also came this week. General Electric remains in the Chamber, the world’s largest business association, but a GE spokesman said, “The Chamber does not speak for us on climate legislation.” The Chamber and many members, along with the National Association of Manufacturers, are key voices of opposition to climate legislation that has been proposed. (Duke Energy quit the NAM in August.) The big question is, would a larger exodus send a political signal to the Senate that industrial opposition to a U.S. carbon program has eroded to the point where lawmakers can strike the deals necessary to put one in place?

However the voices of business organize themselves in the climate debate over the next few months, longer term trends are much clearer. Business schools around the world are internalizing carbon-constrained business and building curricula accordingly [including Duke].

Not So Radioactive Abroad: Nuclear power remains a sticking point in the U.S., but not in India and China. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has pledged to boost India’s nuclear capacity 100-fold by 2050, to 470 gigawatts, with ("untested”) fast breeder reactors. A longtime nuclear power supporter, China would like to increase its nuclear energy production 10 times by 2020, from 11 plants now in operation.

China may announce in Copenhagen its intention to establish a cap-and-trade system. The Guardian cites Philippe Chauvancy, the head of climate exchange at BlueNext, which is working with China to develop standards for voluntary emission reduction products. The article might overstate the speed at which this system might get up and running, given the complexity of building standards and acquiring know-how to certify carbon credits. More likely, China may run pilot emissions trading systems on sulfur dioxide and water pollution.

Desktop Climate Change: If the major economies enacted the most aggressive suite of climate proposals, how might they soften climate change by 2050? A new climate model attempts to bridge the gap between discussions on the international stage and scientific predictions about the mitigating effects of aggressive energy policy. C-ROADS started as an MIT doctoral dissertation in 1997, and has been developed into a tool that can project, in real time, the climate results of a given suite of policy. The model’s developers have been shopping it around the world, recently introducing it to Chinese climate experts, so that policymakers can better understand the potential implications of plans and decisions at moments in time up to 2100. The Climate Interactive Web site offers “Climate Bathtub Animation” for viewers playing the home game.

What life in the U.S. might look like in 2050 is hard to say, even with a nimble new climate model. The Cleveland Plain Dealer’s business section grapples with this statement, prompted by a chat with Steven Koonin, undersecretary for science at the Department of Energy. John Funk’s article points out the proverbial elephant in the room of climate politics: the risks and cost of inaction. the Nature blog Climate Feedback frames the question as an either-or, asking, “If we are trying to keep global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less but 4 degrees is possible even within some of our lifetimes, which world do we prepare for?”

The Climate Archipelago: The many specialities and sub-specialities, topics and subtopics within the climate change conversation really might be imagined as a vast group of islands, each not always audible from the others. Residents of one island might know their own really, really well, but not others’. The several islands of climate skepticism are well-represented in the blogosphere.

Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit is one of the few rigorous skeptic sites that actually scrutinizes scientific statistical data, searching, it appears, for malfeasance and incompetence. McIntyre has earned headlines over the last few years by raising questions about some prominent studies, and laudably forcing a correction or two. But it’s good to keep in mind that disputing one line of evidence of global warming -- kicking it out of the climate archipelago -- still leaves all the other islands untouched: There are many, many lines of evidence suggesting that human industrial activity is changing the climate. The scientists at RealClimate.org, often the target of Climate Audit’s audits, respond to McIntyre’s recent work, pointing out that climate change is sufficiently well-documented that even “a statistical quirk or mistake” doesn’t erase climate risk -- or reduce the size of the archipelago.

Eric Roston is Senior Associate at the Nicholas Institute and author of The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Greatest Threat. Prologue available at Grist.

Related Links:

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Well “climate week” has just wrapped up with the conclusion of the G20 summit in Pittsburgh.  This week was an important one to build international and US momentum for addressing global warming pollution (as I discussed here).

As I discussed here and my colleague discussed here, some positive steps emerged this week on the international and US front.  I won’t recap them here but every bit of momentum is essential if we are going to be able to seize the opportunity (the statement of NRDC’s President available here gives the broad overview of this week).  We need all machines running in forward and none shifted into reverse.  We got mostly forward movement this week, although not close to at full speed.

And while the G20 meeting didn’t make as much progress as we ultimately need, it did provide a bit of forward momentum on a couple of fronts (the communiqué is available here):

Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.  Going into the G20 meeting, the issue of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies seemed to spring up out of thin air.  But at the end of the meeting the G20 countries had committed to:

"Rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption…We will have our Energy and Finance Ministers, based on their national circumstances, develop implementation strategies and timeframes, and report back to Leaders at the next Summit."

While a lot of details need to emerge on how this will occur and over what timeframe, it is a good down payment.  We can’t get where we need to go if some incentives are working against us.  We need all the wheels moving in the forward direction and subsidies for fossil fuel emissions are moving us in the wrong direction on clean energy and global warming pollution.  As I put it in this Washington Post article:

“Given that we're talking about deep cuts across the world, we can't have investments in clean energy competing against investments in fossil fuels that are going in the wrong direction."

According to one estimate, around $300 billion a year is spent worldwide to subsidize fossil fuels.  According to the Environmental Law Institute, the US government alone provided $72 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry between 2002 and 2008.  So the US has an onus to prove that it can lead on this G20 effort, especially since it was driven at the US suggestion.  Reducing global fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 is estimated to reduce global warming pollution by 10 percent by 2050 (as reported by Reuters) so this could make a positive dent in our efforts.  

Climate Finance and Investment in Developing Countries.  At the end of the Major Economies Forum meeting in Italy President Obama: "asked the G20 finance ministers to take up the climate financing issues and report back to us at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh in the fall" (as I discussed here).  So the issue of climate investment and finance in developing countries was supposed to be high on the radar for the G20. 

This was a welcome step since having Finance Ministers and Heads of Government more intimately involved in the climate investment and finance debate was supposed to provide a little “injection of energy” to this debate.  After all, these leaders have tools and influence within their country beyond the pay grade of the current climate negotiators who are currently grappling with this issue. 

Some work by Finance Ministries and Heads of Government went into trying to make progress on this critical issue for getting a strong agreement in Copenhagen.  But it is clear that these leaders have a lot of work left as the G20 countries were only able to state that:

“We welcome the work of the Finance Ministers and direct them to report back at their next meeting with a range of possible options for climate change financing to be provided as a resource to be considered in the UNFCCC negotiations at Copenhagen.”  

Clearly a call for more work isn’t a resolution to this issue, so hopefully Finance Ministers will live up to this call for more work and deliver a set of specific options that can be quickly integrated into the climate negotiations.  Work on this issue definitely needs to “shift into high gear” if we are going to have a strong outcome in Copenhagen.

-----------

So this week saw some very positive forward movement on a number of fronts as NRDC’s President stated:

“This week, President Obama reminded the world that climate change is the challenge of our generation and that history will hold countries, including the U.S., accountable for our response.

It was encouraging to see that several key countries demonstrated forward momentum in climate negotiations. President Hu Jintao signaled that China would commit to curb the growth of their emissions through 2020; Indian leaders said they would take domestic steps to reduce their emissions; Japan’s new government committed to a much deeper target than the previous government; and key world leaders strengthened their support for dealing with deforestation emissions.”

The G20 step to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels was a positive step forward but it is not a replacement for a firm limit on global warming pollution.  Nor is it a “replacement for the needed public-sector investment to mobilize clean-energy investment in developing countries” (as I said in this Bloomberg article).

Now the climate negotiations turn to Bangkok, Thailand where negotiators will hope to continue the momentum coming out of climate week by “rolling up their sleeves” (I’ll be posting from there so stay tuned).  Negotiators will have in front of them a 180 page negotiating text that contains many of the key elements for the Copenhagen agreement, but which will need to be whittled down to the core set of options.

Hopefully the momentum from “climate week” and the Bangkok negotiation session will “shift global efforts into high gear”!

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Climate week began with world leaders participating in a full day of discussions on global warming. Over 100 world leaders were in attendance-the largest gathering of world leaders on global warming and the first in many respects. The leaders of a number of the key countries provided remarks. Yesterday's events were intended to give a much needed injection of energy to the final stretch of the international negotiations to secure a new agreement in Copenhagen this December.

Remember, there are five key building blocks for the agreement that emerges from Copenhagen so we need to watch what details are filled in on each of these:

As I discussed there are some "rays of hope" in international efforts to address global warming. And leader after leader effectively said something to the effect of: "the fate of future generations depends upon our choices today and our future is in our hands" (or something like that). Some said it more eloquently than me, but my speech writers aren't paid as well.

The U.N. climate summit provided some boosts to the international negotiations as we lead into the final stretch before Copenhagen. Some of these were significant enough to attract attention in the media, while others slipped a bit below the radar but are no less important.

China. President Hu Jintao outlined a set of new actions that China will undertake to reduce their global warming pollution. Most significant they signaled that they would reduce their emissions intensity (emissions per unit of Gross Domestic Product) by "a notable margin by 2020 from 2005 levels." They held back the actual number that they would reduce their intensity by in 2020, but this is a negotiation so this isn't surprising at this stage. But as I discussed here and my colleague Barbara Finamore discussed here, this action could mark an important shift in China's efforts.

It is getting harder and harder for countries to hide behind the inaction of China with these promising signs from China.

The details of this new commitment are important, but it is clear that China is willing to take steps to cut its emissions and they signaled that internationally. The U.S. has an important role to play in helping to secure that the detailed commitments that emerge from China are strong. The Chinese will be looking to what the U.S. will do domestically through its clean energy and climate bill, but also what the U.S. will be asking of them through the U.S.-China bilateral agreement. A huge opportunity!

India. Over the last couple of weeks India has shown some very promising shifts in their position. As my colleagues have discussed here and here, India recently announced it would quantify the emissions cuts it will make under its National Action Plan on Climate Change. And India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh explained that India is: "...prepared to take on, voluntarily, unilaterally, mitigation actions as part of a domestic legislative agenda."

Anybody that has followed the negotiations will notice that this is a big shift in the Indian position. They used to be resistant to committing internationally to undertake efforts to reduce their emissions, even though on-the-ground in India they had actually moved on a number fronts to reduce emissions. Details of these commitments need to be firmed up, but this is another new opportunity!

Japan. The new Japanese government came to the U.N. and offered internationally to increase their emissions reduction target to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This is an important improvement from the offer that the previous government put on the table.

Japan is a highly efficient economy in many respects so this more aggressive target is a positive sign. It is a new opportunity that provides a much needed boost to the targets that developed countries are committing to!

U.S. President Obama spoke before the U.N. and as NRDC's President stated:

This is an opportunity that can be seized by the Senate beginning next week as the debate on the climate bill begins in earnest when a bill is expected to be released by Senator Kerry and Boxer. A lot of work is occurring behind the scenes in the Senate, so I'm optimistic that a bill can move quickly through the Senate. Passage of this bill will put the U.S. in a strong position to secure a strong international agreement and seize this opportunity!

Seizing the Opportunity. These bits of momentum provide an opportunity as world leaders meet in Pittsburgh for the G20. The question is will they seize this opportunity, build upon it in Pittsburgh, and provide an extra boost for the final stretch of the international negotiations.

Will they commit to move forward the important debate on providing the needed investments in developing countries on clean energy, deforestation, and international adaptation?

I'll be here in Pittsburgh watching this debate and nudging for a clear signal from world leaders that they will bring a commitment to Copenhagen to support the needed investment in developing countries. And they'll have to provide a clear signal that they are poised to secure a strong agreement in Copenhagen.

Related Links:

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…

U.N. headquarters: Site of all the inaction.Photo: United NationsThe U.S. was given a starring role at the United Nations Climate Summit on Tuesday, but China stole the show.

President Barack Obama had pride of place on the agenda, as the first head of state to speak to the gathered world leaders, ministers, and climate negotiators.  His speech, which was warmly received, offered rhetorically forceful yet wholly general commentary about the huge risks posed by climate change and the need for action.  Obama said nothing specific about what his nation was prepared to commit to in order to slash its emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.  Most of the speeches by other heads of state charted the same safe territory.

Chinese President Hu Jintao, on the other hand, vowed that China would curb the growth of its greenhouse-gas emissions by a "notable margin" from 2005 levels by 2020.  He said his nation would generate 15 percent of its power from renewables and nuclear by 2020, and plant 150,000 square miles of new forest over that same period.  He also committed to improving energy efficiency and integrating climate action into domestic economic development plans. 

While Hu avoided talk of specific emissions reductions and stressed that developed countries should do more than their developing counterparts, his statements were the most definitive to date about what China is prepared to do to cut and compensate for its carbon emissions.

Al Gore hailed Hu's speech.  "I think that China has provided impressive leadership," Gore said.

Humberto Rosa, Portugal’s secretary of state for environment, echoed that sentiment.  "China has today given a little bit of leadership" among the developing nations "by giving solid numbers," Rosa said.

Gore, Rosa, and others had similar praise for Japan's new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, who has pledged that his nation will cut emissions 25 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

These new commitments from Asia's powerhouses are putting real pressure on the U.S., as is the European Union's willingness to commit to cuts of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 if the U.S. will follow suit.

Meanwhile, small island nations -- some of whose very existence is threatened by climate change -- are also putting on all the pressure they can. 

This past summer, the world's major economies announced a goal of keeping overall surface warming of the Earth by 2100 to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures.  The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has challenged the global community [PDF] to keep overall surface warming well below 1.5 degrees C, which would mean even greater cuts than the most ambitious treaty proposals made so far.

A treaty that settles for anything less would spell disaster for island nations, in the view of Dean Bialek, U.N. representative for the nonprofit group Independent Diplomat, who is advising and assisting the AOSIS nations in the climate treaty negotiations. "[It] would mean complete inundation and statelessness," says Bialek.  "That's a morally repugnant outcome, and totally unacceptable."

But despite China, despite Japan, despite the European Union, most observers agree that it will all come down to what the U.S. is prepared to do.  "A firm commitment from the U.S. would make the dominoes fall into place," Bialek says. 

"With the change in administration in the U.S., everyone believed that a strong deal was forthcoming," Bialek continued. "Hopes have dimmed a bit due to the mixed signals coming from Washington."

Portugal's Rosa says the E.U. still trusts that President Obama wants to fight global warming, but worries that America's domestic political process could derail this year's international treaty talks. 

"The American people and the Senate are the real actors now," Rosa says.  "We're sure the United States will get there, but we'll be sorry if it's not in time for Copenhagen."

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

UNITED NATIONS - Former U.S. vice president and environmental activist Al Gore on Tuesday hailed China and Japan for providing global leadership in tackling climate change.

Speaking at a special U.N. Summit on Climate Change, the Nobel laureate praised statements made by both Chinese President Hu Jintao and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.

"I think that China has provided impressive leadership," Gore told reporters.

Predicting that China would take further action if global negotiations on a new treaty succeed, Gore said: "I think the glass is very much half full with China. It's not widely known in the rest of the world but China in each of the last two years has planted two and half times more trees than the entire rest of the world put together," he said.

Chinese President Hu Jintao said that the world's largest developing economy was ready to slow down emissions by a "notable margin." But he said emissions would be measured in terms of China's growth and did not provide a figure.

The United States has led rich nations in demanding that China and other developing nations commit to action in a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, whose requirements on rich states to cut emissions expire in 2012.

Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, making his first international appearance since his center-left government took charge, confirmed to the summit that the world's second largest economy would ramp up its commitments.

He pledged that Japan would cut emissions by 25 percent by 2020 compared with the 1990 level, a goal far more ambitious than the previous government's eight percent.

Gore described Hatoyama's speech as "terrific" and said he was "encouraged by his pledge to step up assistance for developing nations. Japan, along with the European Union, has provided tremendous political leadership over the past decade in keeping the world on track toward progress involving the climate crisis," he said.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

UNITED NATIONS - Chinese President Hu Jintao on Tuesday pledged to curb the growth of China's carbon dioxide emissions by a "notable margin" by 2020 from their 2005 levels.
  
But Hu also did not put a figure on the cuts, telling the U.N. General Assembly that the curbs would be measured by unit of Gross Domestic Product, in line with China's concerns about preserving its rapid economic growth.
  
"We will endeavor to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by a notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level," Hu told a special summit on climate change.
  
China and other developing nations have long resisted mandatory emission curbs as part of the next treaty on fighting climate change.
  
Hu also pledged to "vigorously" develop renewable energy and nuclear energy.
  
Hu, whose speech had been billed by China in advance as a major statement on slow-moving climate negotiations, stood by developing nations' position that rich states needed to do more because of their historic responsibility for the problem.
  
Climate change "is an environmental issue but also, and more importantly, a development issue," Hu said. 
  
"At stake in the fight against climate change are the common interests of the entire world," he continued, stressing that the "vast number" of developing nations were affected.
  
"Developed countries should fulfill the task of emission reduction set in the Kyoto Protocol, continue to undertake substantial mid-term quantified emission-reduction targets, and support developing countries in countering climate change," Hu said.
  
Nations are due to meet in December in Copenhagen to lay the framework for the successor to the landmark Kyoto Protocol, whose obligations on wealthy nations to cut greenhouse-gas emissions expire in 2012.
  
Developed nations, while pledging to fight global warming, have insisted that emerging powers also commit to action as part of Kyoto's successor.
  
Hu said that China, the world's third largest economy, "has made great achievements in development as shown in the profound changes in the livelihood of the people."
  
But he said that China "still lags behind more than 100 countries in terms of per capita GDP and it remains the biggest developing country in the world."

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success