Working in a coalition of roughly 500 organizations from nearly 80 countries can be tough. With so many different points of view and unique perspectives and expertise, coming to agreement on something as complex as solving climate change can be difficult to say the least. But then again, isn't that what we're asking over 180 countries to do next month in Copenhagen?

Well, I'm happy to say that at least as far as the Climate Action Network - International (CAN) is concerned, we've done our job and it's in the form of CAN's "Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal." In this document just released today ahead of the upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen, we, as the world's largest network of organizations fighting for solutions to the climate crisis, share our collective views on the key elements of a successful climate agreement. Now it's up to the leaders around the world to do their part in Copenhagen.

This vision has not come easily, but in the effort it has taken comes its strength. We have brought together within CAN some of the most dedicated and expert analysts and advocates in world to come together around the key essentials for a successful outcome from the United Nations climate negotiations. While some specifics may still be debated by even our own members in CAN, this document serves as the collective voice of what is needed from our leaders in Copenhagen and beyond. And it's a powerful vision coming from hundreds of experts around the globe.

The thing that's amazing is that-while we've been as ambitious as we believe is necessary to address this challenge and as true to the science as we possibly can be -- we know that what we've laid out is achievable.

Some highlights of what we're calling for include:

When leaders come to Copenhagen next month, CAN's "FAB Essentials" will be our yardstick for measuring our leaders' success in their steps along the path towards climate stabilization and a sustainable world. We know that what we've put forward is ambitious, but what's more important is that the elements found within CAN's FAB Essentials are both essential and achievable.

For more information on the Climate Action Network and "Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal," please visit our website. An official press release can also be found here. And finally, as the conference in December moves along, be sure to stay tuned at our blog for updates on how the nations of the world are doing in meeting the FAB Essentials.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

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, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

So who will be the real power players in Copenhagen? The official estimate for official delegates attending the U.N. climate conference hovers somewhere around a gajillion. OK, seriously, it’s a mere 20,000. Then there are thousands of activists, journalists, business leaders, and NGO reps who will be seeking the delegates’ ears. Here are 15 people worth watching—ones who wield outsize potential to shape the outcome, or to shape the narrative that affects the outcome. And two you can safely ignore.

There's a text version below the slideshow for you multimedia haters and search-engine spiders, ahem.

Lars Loekke Rasmussen, Denmark’s Prime Minister—The chairman of the climate talks naturally wants some positive news to come out of the host city. He’s promoting a two-step deal: reach a political agreement in Copenhagen, then hash out the “legally binding” part in 2010. But signing a toothless deal in Copenhagen could take the pressure off richer countries to do the hard part next year, as one analyst notes. It would help heads of state like Rasmussen (and Barack Obama) save face, but a “one agreement, two steps” approach might prove impossible to finish.

Abdalla Salem El-Badri, Secretary General of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries)—The oil group’s lead Copenhagen negotiator made news this fall by saying OPEC nations should be compensated as oil-burning countries reduce their consumption. Buy less, pay more? It sounds absurd at face value, but world leaders may see the peril in destabilizing economies in the Middle East and other oil-exporting states.

Jairam Ramesh, India’s Environment Minister—India’s lead negotiator has been plain unpredictable this year, first staking a rather belligerent “development first, cleanup later” position, then making overtures toward a side deal with the U.S. Recently he denied that climate change is melting Himalayan glaciers, the main source of the subcontinent’s water. That odd claim earned a very public rebuke from fellow countryman Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Bill McKibben, 350.org founder and Grist advisor—Few have been reporting and tracking global warming longer than McKibben, who wrote the first book on the topic for a general audience (1989’s End of Nature). Lately he’s criticized Obama’s leadership on climate (though David Roberts criticizes his criticism).  McKibben will be in Copenhagen as a reporter for Grist and Mother Jones, an organizer for 350.org, and a voice of conscience for the army of activists he’s helped mobilize.

The Yes Men, Pranksters Extraordinaire—There will be plenty of earnest activism and heartfelt pleas to Think of the Children and Puppies. For something fresher, look to America’s most inventive activists, Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno. They’ve made fools of Dow Chemical, Halliburton, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Now they’ve launched BeyondTalk.net to organize civil disobedience aimed at Copenhagen, with more yet to be revealed.

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, President of Brazil—Brazil’s leader has staked part of his legacy to protecting Amazon rainforests, and world leaders have good reason to encourage him--razing forests worldwide has caused about 40% of carbon dioxide emissions. Lula will be keen to reach a deal that involves other countries paying Brazil and Indonesia to preserve their forests—and it’s one of the more likely agreements to be reached in Copenhagen.

Kevin Conrad, lead delegate of Papua New Guinea—The negotiator for this tiny* Pacific island nation drew wild applause and brief fame at the 2007 Bali climate talks, when he told the United States, “If for some reason you’re not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way.” Within minutes the American delegate withdrew an objection, allowing a deal to be struck. Since that folk-hero moment, Conrad has been a leading voice for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), many of which have their existed threatened by rising sea levels. He’s another key supporter of a forest-protection plan.

Ed Miliband, Britain's Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change—Miliband blurs the line between politician and activist, running the “Ed’s pledge” campaign for a binding deal in Copenhagen (don’t hold your breath, Ed). He’s also refused to puff up a non-binding temporary agreement—the kind that would help world leaders save face--saying he wouldn’t back that sort of “inadequate” deal.

Brian Flannery, Exxon Mobil’s Science, Strategy and Programs Manager—The energy giant’s veteran climate advisor might keep a low-profile in Copenhagen—dirty-energy reps tend to use international gatherings for networking, then exert their influence back in national capitals. Like the company that employs him, Flannery no longer denies climate change outright. Instead, the new industry push is for slower plans, lower targets, and alternatives like “let’s just adapt to it instead.”

Jonathan Pershing, chief American negotiator and Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change—In 1997 Al Gore jetted to the log-jammed Kyoto climate talks to help “save” the negotiations at the last minute. But the Senate never ratified the deal he struck, and the U.S. never joined the Kyoto plan. By contrast, Barack Obama’s negotiation team has been careful not to promise anything it can’t deliver (meaning anything the Senate won’t approve). That’s made it a villain on the world stage. Pershing, the lead negotiator and a veteran diplomat from the Clinton administration, has been generally candid about the Obama administration’s difficult position.

Michael Martin, Canada's chief negotiator and Ambassador for Climate Change—Martin must defend what one scientist-activist called Canada’s “obstructionist position” on climate policy. It's driven in part by the polluter-friendly leanings of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the incredibly dirty but lucrative Alberta tar sands.

Ibrahim Mirghani Ibrahim, Sudan’s lead delegate—Sudan holds the chairmanship of the G77, a bloc of developing countries that negotiates together. The nation’s top negotiator wants to ensure the next deal follows in the tracks of the Kyoto Protocol, which does not require developing countries to cut their emissions. Industrialized nations want to begin a new track, or combine the two. Ibrahim’s contentious position ensures that resolving this will be a sticky (if technical) challenge in Copenhagen.

Angelica Navarro, Bolivia’s top climate negotiator—At preliminary meetings in both Bonn and Barcelona this year, Navarro gave bold speeches on behalf of poor countries, low-lying countries, and vulnerable parts of India, China, and Brazil. Millions of people “are suffering from the effects of a problem to which they did not contribute," she told the wealthier delegates in Barcelona. There will be plenty of moral appeals from small countries such as Bolivia and the Maldives; Navarro’s could be one that stands out.

The Grist reporting team, of course!—We'll have an A-Team on the ground: comedian and Flight of the Conchords actor Eugene Mirman, green-living guru Umbra Fisk, and crackerjack reporters Amanda Little and Jonathan Hiskes. [Reporter's note: My editor wrote that "crackerjack" part. I may indulge in self-promotion, but I never describe myself with HFCS-laden adjectives.] [Editor's note: Oh, get over yourself.] Stay tuned to Grist's Copenhagen hub [link] for the best coverage around.

Barack Obama, United States President—It’s easy to overstate the president’s power, given how much the U.S. Senate has tied his hands. He hasn’t even said if he’s attending (even though he'll be in the neighborhood to pick up that Nobel Peace Prize on December 10). Yet Obama could bring attention and prestige to the beleaguered proceedings, more so than any other world leader. If he goes, he’ll be the one to watch.

Bjørn Lomborg, founder of the Copenhagen Consensus Center—The Danish political scientist, self-styled “Skeptical Environmentalist,” and savvy publicity seeker will make the most of home-town advantage to push his silly argument that the world must choose between helping the poor and addressing climate change. His signature rhetorical move is to frame multiple worthwhile goals as an either/or choice. Choose emissions cuts or fighting malaria, because you can’t do both. Don’t fall for it.

James Inhofe, Republican Senator of Oklahoma—The notorious climate skeptic famously called global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” He promises to bring a “truth squad” to Denmark in hopes of undermining the Obama administration’s efforts and making sure the world knows just how contemptuous of 21st century science a U.S. senator can be. Admittedly, he may be tough to ignore—adolescent antics can be entertaining.

* Papua New Guinea, with some 6.7 million people and 178,704 sqare miles, isn't tiny. Thanks for the catch, readers.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

In his latest column, Bill McKibben lays a wide range of sins at the feet of Barack Obama, accusing him of "fibbing and spinning" on climate change. He says Obama is "not particularly focused" on climate (while linking to coverage of an Obama speech dedicated to climate). He says that by putting health care ahead of climate change, Obama "guarantee[d] that health care would occupy most of the year." He says that by focusing on green jobs and energy security rather than climate change, Obama has "left the door open for climate deniers to have a field day." Obama's administration is "spinning" by focusing on the still-common 450 ppm number for atmospheric CO2 rather than the 350 ppm favored by some activists and scientists.

I could not be more sincere when I say that I wish Obama were responsible for health care reform dragging on, for climate deniers and delayers, for the lack of ambition U.S. negotiators can promise the international community. If these things were a matter of Obama simply not trying hard enough, perhaps he could be persuaded to try harder. He's a reasonable guy!

Alas, despite the far-reaching powers people tend to ascribe to the U.S. presidency in general and Obama specifically, it seems to me the real culprit is -- yes, I'm going to say the same thing again, I'm boring! -- the U.S. Senate.

Bill says Obama is using the Senate like Bush used China, as an excuse for delay. The analogy is apt insofar as China was out of Bush's control and the Senate is out of Obama's. But it's inapt in that there's plenty Bush could have done without China and he didn't; there's plenty Obama can do outside the Senate and he's doing it. When it comes to matters under executive branch control, the progress over the last 10 months has been amazing -- new fuel-economy rules, new enforcement of efficiency standards, EPA moving forward on CO2 regulations, energy standards and goals for all federal departments, tons of green stimulus money, national retrofit programs, delay of mining and drilling permits, sustained bi- and multi-lateral international climate diplomacy ... the list goes on. Obama is doing what a president can do -- more than any president has ever done.

Ultimately, then, Bill's beef comes down to Obama's supposed refusal to "push the Senate as hard as [he] possibly can." Tellingly, there are no details offered on what this pushing might involve, just some handwaving at "spending political capital."

But how to push the Senate? That's the most important question! Surely it deserves a little more attention.

Bill Clinton tried getting out ahead of Congress to prod it to action. He sent Gore to Kyoto promising ambitious action on climate. He handed Congress a health care reform bill that he (or rather his wife) had hashed out behind closed doors in the White House, ready to go.

Conservative Democrats bridled; they felt no loyalty to his agenda; they rejected the Kyoto treaty; they picked at the health bill and were happy to let it die.

Obama has been trying the opposite strategy. He is very carefully instructing his international negotiators not to promise anything that the Senate hasn't already signed on to. (That means waiting for the Senate to pass a bill.) On both health care and clean energy, he has laid out a set of broad principles and let members of Congress work out their own bills, cheerleading occasionally from the sidelines. On health care, the progress has been impossibly slow, dragging out longer than anyone not totally cynical about the Senate could have predicted. But it's been progress. On clean energy, the strategy worked like a charm with the House clean energy bill. Obama mostly let Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) handle it, with some crucial behind-the-scenes help. The administration strongly endorsed the bill when it passed. A roughly similar bill got to the Senate and raced through Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) progressive Environment and Public Works Committee.

And ... conservative Democrats bridled; they felt no loyalty to Obama's agenda; they're trash-talking Copenhagen; they're picking at the clean energy bill and are happy to let it die. (See: Jim Webb.)

That's two very different executive strategies that ran into similar wankery from conservative Senate Dems. Maybe our conclusion should be that the problem is conservative Senate Dems. Many such Dems come from states that voted for McCain and/or Bush. Obama has no leverage over them; support from Obama isn't important or necessarily helpful for their electoral prospects. Unless they feel constrained by party discipline like their colleagues on the other side of the aisle, or God forbid feel the pull of conscience, they have no incentive to work to pass the progressive agenda Obama campaigned on. Nor do they have reason to accept any treaty his administration signs that goes beyond what they've already agreed to. Dems desperately need their votes, but they don't desperately need other Dems, and there's just very little in Obama's arsenal with which to "push" them. The dysfunction of the Senate is structural; it's not in Obama's power to change, no matter how much he tries, no matter how much capital he spends.

The difference between Clinton's flamboyant rhetorical pushing and Obama's relatively laid-back style is this: Obama's still has a chance to work. However frustrating it may be to activists who want bigger words, bolder promises, and faster action, the fact remains that the Dems are within reach of passing a health care reform bill and have at least laid out a path to passing a clean energy bill and ratifying a binding international climate treaty in 2010. It's too early to deem Obama's leadership a failure.

Yes: political realities can be changed. The kind of broad grassroots movement that Bill McKibben himself has been so instrumental in creating can shift the tectonic plates. But a crucial step in that process is to accurately identify what and who is blocking progress. It's not Obama who deserves the ire of the 350 army. It's Max Baucus (D-Mont.). It's Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). It's Jim Webb (D-Vir.). It's Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). It's the filibuster! These targets are harder to reach and in many ways less satisfying to battle, but they are the real locus of delay and inaction.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Waking up on a dreary Sunday morning this weekend in Copenhagen (where I've recently moved to prepare for the upcoming climate talks in December), I was met with a barrage of headlines, mostly from U.S. media, telling me that Copenhagen is doomed to total failure and I might as well head off to Mexico City where next year's summit will be held. The New York Times cried out: World Leaders Agree to Delay a Deal on Climate Change. The Washington Post bellowed: Copenhagen talks unlikely to yield climate accord, leaders told. Not the best way to start a Sunday morning.

Is Copenhagen really over before it begins? Had I moved to this dark, rainy (but beautiful!) city for no reason? Should we all just pack it up and hope that political declarations will solve it all?

The answer, thankfully, quickly became a resounding "no." As Grist's own David Roberts is often the first to point out, the mainstream media clearly got it wrong. There's still hope -- a lot of it, at that.

Let's start with those headlines. Who are these "world leaders" who agreed to delay? Well, the plural may be accurate, but just barely.

In the 48 hours since initial reports, as Ministers and other government representatives have trickled into Copenhagen for the "pre-COP" preparatory meeting, it's become clear that while the media reported that all 19 APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) leaders were in agreement on the so-called "one agreement, two steps" approach, that's not at all the case.

The real story occurred at a hastily arranged APEC breakfast. Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen made a last-minute visit and surprised the room with a speech that was only vetted by a few of the so-called "leaders." One can only imagine a room full of bleary-eyed Heads of State sitting around a big table sipping their coffee and politely nodding at Rasmussen's climate change speech without really understanding how their nods would be translated by the media.

Rasmussen began his speech by saying:

...I would like to share with you how I believe a Copenhagen Agreement could be constructed to serve the dual purpose of providing for continued negotiations on a legal agreement and for immediate action...

And later towards the end of the speech he says:

Some of you might have wished for a different format or for a different legal structure. Still, I believe you will agree with me on one fundamental point: What matters at the end of the day is the ability of the Copenhagen Agreement to capture and reinforce global commitment to real actions.

Doesn't sound like consensus to me; it sounds like a man trying to convince an audience to go along with him. It's not entirely clear who actually did agree with the Prime Minister, but what is clear is that there is nowhere near consensus on such a delay approach; in fact, dozens of countries oppose it and are still wishing--and fighting--for more.

Now, what about the actual plan itself -- the "one agreement, two steps" plan? Two steps to an agreement doesn't sounds so bad, right?

As NRDC's Jake Schmidt wrote, the strategy might not be so bad if you actually thought that the second step would ever be taken. Unfortunately, what Rasmussen has put forward is a cynical approach. It's becoming clear that all he cares about is getting a "positive" result in Copenhagen, and that the second step could just be for show.

If you look closely at Rasmussen's APEC breakfast speech, there's very little incentive to actually finish the job in 2010 (as in, to take the "second step"). Rasmussen explains his vision thusly:

The Copenhagen Agreement should capture progress already achieved in the negotiations and at the same time provide for immediate action already from next year.

The Copenhagen Agreement should be political by nature, yet precise on specific commitments and binding on countries committing to reach certain targets and to undertake certain actions or provide agreed finance.

The Copenhagen Agreement should be global, comprehensive and substantial, yet flexible enough to accommodate countries with very different national circumstances.

The Copenhagen Agreement should finally mandate continued legal negotiations and set a deadline for their conclusion.

Why would any developed country with high emissions want to go back to the table and flesh out a legally binding deal after the pressure of Copenhagen has passed and there is no real obligation to do so? Despite his lip service to "continued legal negotiations", there's no clarity nor firm deadline. Rasmussen's invention of "politically binding"--a term no one seems willing or able to define--is also repeated here.

Furthermore, there is only a passing mention of the Kyoto Protocol later in the speech. Despite what some would have you think, however, the Kyoto Protocol does not expire in 2012. In fact, in 2005, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol agreed to negotiate a second commitment period (2013-2017) and further committed in Bali in 2007 to reaching a conclusion on what that second commitment period would look like. In Rasmussen's vision, this goal seems to disappear in favor of a "politically binding" outcome.

Indeed, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper--one of the leading climate negotiation blockers now that George W. Bush is out of the picture--has been positively beaming in the press about this announcement. Not a sign of a positive development.

Luckily, there's still time to push for more. The Alliance of Small Island States, the African Group of nations, and other vulnerable and least developed countries will surely be pushing back on this plan during the prep meetings in Copenhagen this week. In fact, 11 Pacific Island States already have. Some European nations are also likely to stand up to this plan.

The planet and its people need a fair, ambitious, and binding outcome from this process. Countries should be working on such a document in Copenhagen and they can and should finish it there. After all, it's what they committed to in Bali just two years ago.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

A couple weeks ago I wrote a piece on what's really killing climate legislation: the absurd procedural chokepoints in the U.S. Senate, coupled with an unprincipled minority devoted to obstruction. I'm happy to report there's been an uptick lately in people trying to draw attention to this problem. From the last week or two:

Here's one thing to add to the discussion. The Copenhagen climate talks are coming up. The Obama administration has been scrupulously careful not to promise anything in international negotiations that it can't deliver -- i.e., that it can't get past the U.S. Senate.

Senate ratification of an international treaty requires not just 60 but 67 votes. Say 34 senators rally to block such a treaty -- senators from, oh, Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. Thus can representatives for 22,540,352 people -- 7.4% of the population -- block the will of the other 281,519,372. Indeed, senators representing 7.4% of Americans can thwart the entire world's efforts to address the climate crisis.

Killing a treaty is easier than killing a clean energy bill. Why, killing a clean energy bill requires representatives for 25,289,049 people -- fully 8.3% of the population! -- to thwart the will of the remaining 278,770,675. (If you're keeping score, the guilty parties here would be: Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Iowa.) For the record, 15 of those 21 states (71%) voted for Bush in 2004.

Now of course it won't be these precise coalitions of senators that kill the COP15 treaty and the clean energy bill. They'll snag high-population senators like Cornyn and Hutchison from Texas. But the point remains: the Senate, already unrepresentative thanks to the disproportionate influence of rural, low-population states, has become, thanks to the routine use of filibusters and holds, grotesquely undemocratic.

The country just can't be governed this way. And consequently, the world community cannot coordinate to effectively meet the climate threat.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Conventional wisdom says that the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill faces a long uphill slog against unlikely odds. Many Senators, especially those in the "center," think it's unpopular. They think it will raise prices during a recession. They think it will unfairly hurt their states. They see little political upside and lots of possible downside.

Here's the thing about Beltway CW, though: it always forecasts delay, difficulty, and failure. And it's always right. Until it's wrong. As Al Gore is fond of saying, politics, like climate, is nonlinear. An accretion of small changes can build beneath the surface of the news cycle and emerge unexpectedly as a rapid shift. The odds in Vegas may still be against the bill, but there are reasons for cautious optimism. Seven of them, actually.

-----

1. Key Republican support is already in place, as Sen. Lindsey Graham takes to The New York Times editorial page with John Kerry to offer full-throated support for passing clean energy legislation this year:

It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies and that we supported different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world.

Graham has been making noises, but this is thunder. The Kerry bill will not be able to pass without at least a little Republican support giving cover to conservative Dems. Graham is offering that cover early in the legislative process.

He's also made the price clear: more support for nuclear and offshore drilling. That's odious, but less odious that it appears at first blush, and an affordable price relative to the benefits of passing a bill.

Snowe and Collins are likely yes votes. With Graham so far out ahead on this, McCain may be shamed into joining him (though he's far from a sure thing). Together they could get a second hearing from other Senators like Isakson who love nuclear power. (Alexander's probably a lost cause now that he's in leadership.) Their combined influence, coupled with his longstanding relationship with Obama, could pull Lugar over. In Florida, Crist could see this as part of his legacy and influence LeMieux to get behind it. At some point you can imagine a snowball effect, though the odds of breaking five Republican yea votes are still fairly low.

2. Health care reform might just work out after all. The Finance Committee finally passed a bill, it was scored favorably by the CBO, and floor debate approaches. After what seems like an eternity, there's finally some consensus and momentum. It's possible to imagine a bill passing in the next couple months. When that train leaves the station it will (finally!) free up much-needed Senate staff attention for when the clean energy train pulls in. It will clear the deck for Finance to mark up the Kerry bill (if Baucus decides he wants to, God help us all).

If a good healthcare bill is signed into law, it will have an enormous boost on morale and generate further momentum.

3. The public wants this bill. Conservative Dems are behind the times. They haven't been keeping up with the latest polling, which shows that clean energy reform is broadly popular, even in swing states. Recent focus groups show that the right's "energy tax" attack isn't working. It gets crushed by the message that America needs to take control of its future, cut dependence on unfriendly countries, and create new jobs. Americans want it to get done and they're willing to pay for it. Clean energy in particular is wildly popular -- a recent poll found that "77% of Americans feel the federal government should make solar power development a national priority, including the financial support needed."

There's a good story to tell even about the most carbon intensive states. They are protected in the bill by consumer rebates and allowance money for trade-exposed industries. Every state has enormous potential for efficiency, and according to a new report:

At least three-fifths of the fifty states could meet all their internal electricity needs from renewable energy generated inside their borders. Every state with a renewable energy mandate can meet it with in-state renewable fuels.

Clean energy reform has potential benefits for every state and area of the country. It's a winning political issue.

4. International pressure is becoming intense. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize can be seen, at least in part, as a reward for taking the U.S. in a new direction on climate change. Accepting the prize will put him in Oslo on Dec. 10, right next door to Copenhagen, just as international climate talks begin there. Hint, hint.

Once upon a time the lack of action in China and other rapidly developing countries could be used as an excuse for delay in Congress, but that too is quickly changing. China is moving. Japan is moving. Indonesia is moving. Even India is moving (see also). Developing countries have made it clear that they're willing to be part of a global system of emission reductions. Global green campaigns like 350.org and TckTckTck are building cross-cultural consensus around a set of baseline metrics. Everyone is waiting for the U.S. to step up. That puts enormous pressure on Obama to deliver the goods, which he can't do without Senate support.

5. The administration is engaged. The administration has been criticized by greens for neglecting clean energy in favor of health care, and it's true that with the exception of his U.N. speech Obama has mostly focused his public remarks elsewhere. Still, the accusation isn't entirely fair: there's an extraordinary level of engagement on clean energy legislation at the cabinet level, probably more so than on health. Browner, Chu, and Jackson have been advocating for the bill and meeting individually with Senators for months.

What's missing so far is the full force of Obama's personal popularity and persuasiveness, the most powerful forces in American politics. Everyone agrees the outcome in the Senate will at least somewhat turn on the level of his involvement.

6. Greens are getting their act together at last. The formation of the Clean Energy Works coalition a month ago presaged a period of relatively happy media news for greens. Some of it was the Chamber of Commerce stepping on rakes, but some credit goes to a more consistent message and concerted efforts to highlight stereotype-busting greens like veterans and business execs. There are targeted ad campaigns, media stunts (from groups like the Avaaz Action Factory, Greenpeace, and MoveOn), and a growing grassroots youth movement (see: Energy Action Coalition's PowerShift 09) making noise. It's getting loud enough that even Congress can hear.

7. The business community is divided, as recent defections from the Chamber of Commerce demonstrate. More and more CEOs realize that the demographic they most covet -- young people -- cares about climate change, expects companies to be environmentally prudent, and expresses that opinion in purchasing decisions. Being backwards on climate is bad branding and bad business.

Ten years ago, every hot-sh*t entrepreneur, engineer, and investor wanted to change the web. Today they want to change the grid. They understand that clean energy legislation will unlock enormous business opportunities. Big companies want to get their hands on those opportunities, which is why they're actively lobbying for a bill.

When Chamber of Commerce president Thomas Donahue, a guy sitting comfortably at the center of an old boys network of long standing, finds himself offering defensive, incoherent pabulum on the subject of climate change and whining about big mean environmental groups ... something has changed.

----

Given the brittle system by which legislation is passed in the U.S., with all its chokepoints and 60-vote mega-majority minimums, failure is always a safe bet. Despite all the heated talk about what Obama must "demand," the truth is that the fate of this bill (and everything that hinges on it) lies with a small handful of Senators, Republicans and conservative Democrats who aren't accountable to him or his agenda. Their political concerns are more idiosyncratic.

Nonetheless, there is a clear path from here to passage. If everything goes right and the Senate is willing to step up to history, it could happen.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

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

Michael A. Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations, writing in the September/October Foreign Affairs, finds “vanishingly small” odds that December’s international negotiations in Copenhagen will produce a comprehensive climate treaty.

From the journal’s summary (emphasis mine):

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

This column from Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times really pushes my buttons. There's something beneath the surface that is downright pathological, and not at all unique to Rachman. It besets most political pundits on this issue. I'll try to dig it out.

The premise of Rachman's column is that while everyone accuses climate change skeptics of being in denial, in fact climate activists are in denial as well. They keep hanging on to the U.N. negotiation process long after it's become clear that developing countries aren't going to budge. The politics of an international climate accord are incredibly difficult, possibly insoluble.

That's an arguable point, but a fair one. The U.N. process is open to criticism. And the politics really are difficult. But listen to this conclusion:

The state of international negotiations presents a huge dilemma for climate change activists. Most genuinely believe that a failure to achieve an international agreement in Copenhagen would be catastrophic. But they also know that, even if a deal is reached, it is likely to be feeble and ineffective. If they admit this publicly, they risk creating a climate of despair and inaction. But if they press ahead, they are putting all their energy into an approach that they must know is highly unlikely to deliver.

It is a horrible dilemma. But, in difficult situations, it is best to start by facing facts. The trouble is that -- in different ways -- both sides of the climate change debate are in denial.

This kind of language is so familiar that you have to step back a moment to recognize that there's something bizarre about it.

Climate science indicates that a business-as-usual path will lead to at least 5 degrees of warming by 2100, which represents utter catastrophe. Many scientists believe that we are near (or have passed) tipping points after which positive feedbacks become self-reinforcing and climate changes are irreversible. If we want to avoid that, we have very little time to peak and start reducing global emissions. No one has proposed a credible way of doing that aside from international negotiations.

All that is either true, or it's not. The mainstream science and policy communities think it's true.

If it is true, then millions of people, and possibly civilization itself, are threatened by climate shifts, within the lifetime of people alive today. If it is true, then the difficulty of getting an international agreement is not a "dilemma for climate change activists." It's a dilemma for human beings. "A climate of despair and inaction" is not a risk to activists. It's a risk to the lives and welfare of hundreds of millions of people and future generations.

So I want to ask Rachman, and all the pundits who address climate politics: Do you believe it's true? Do you believe the mainstream scientific consensus that climate change poses massive risks for humanity, and that urgent international action is necessary to reduce those risks?

If so, it is incoherent, even immoral, to go on treating this issue as though it were merely a clash of interest groups. It's not like climate policy is for "climate activists" what card check is for unions, or financial regulations are to the banking sector, or subsidies are to farmers. It's not a parochial issue.

Do you believe it's true? If not, say so, clearly. If so, then it's your fight too. You cannot stand on the sidelines in the pose of a savvy, above-it-all observer. There are no sidelines.

Related Links:

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

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

FOX News and TrollCat agree: Global warming is BUNK!

International climate negotiations often seem like some sort of cosmic science fair project -- an aquarium full of hamsters connected to rudimentary motors. There's a lot of frantic running, a lot of sweat and heat, but in the end, very little light.

Faith in the UN climate process has dimmed. Joe Romm calls it a "dead man walking." The Copenhagen talks in December are generally discussed with the same dissonant mixture of urgency ("You have to do it in Copenhagen," says UNFCCC chair Yvo de Boer) and fatalism ("There is no movement," says German environment minister Sigmar Gabriel) as the last dozen rounds of international talks.

The Obama administration knows the danger of sclerosis and is working on several fronts to regain a sense of momentum. A good bit of that work will happen during this busy week, which will take the president to Russia to meet with President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin; he'll deliver a major speech on U.S.-Russia relations today. On Wednesday, he heads to Italy for the latest meeting of the G8 countries (US, France, UK, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada). On Thursday, on the sidelines of the G8, Obama will convene a meeting of the Major Economies Forum (the G8 plus Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa). On Friday he'll head to Ghana and on Saturday he'll deliver a major speech on development and democracy.

At all these events the issue of climate change will play a role. All will reveal something about the Obama administration's approach to international climate negotiations.

The Grand Plan

International climate negotiations have primarily been channeled through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, but many in the international community are losing faith in that process, or at least in its monopoly on negotiations. Getting 192 countries to sign on to a meaningful treaty is nigh impossible; the lowest common denominator among 192 wildly diverse countries turns out to be pretty damn low.

Oddly, it was the Bush administration that first saw a way around the thicket. In May 2007 it announced a series of Major Economies Meetings on climate and energy security. The idea was that the largest greenhouse gas emitters could more easily find areas of agreement working directly with one another, and that what consensus they could find would help break the logjam in the UNFCCC process.

The sincerity of Bush's effort was widely doubted -- he (in)famously advocated for purely voluntary measures -- but the basic wisdom of the strategy is apparent to, among others, the Obama administration. In fact Obama seems to be taking it even farther, working not only with smaller groups like the Major Economies Forum (MEF) and the G8, but bilaterally with other large emitters. What shape these smaller deals take could vary, from shared targets to technology R&D agreements, but again, the idea is to show that big emitters are finally acting, taking real steps. This will, it is hoped, cut through the Gordian you-go-first knot sure to bedevil the Copenhagen climate talks.

The strategy began with Todd Stern's initial efforts in China, but "you can definitely say we are looking for other partners," an administration official said.

Russia

Most members of the international community had written Russia off when it comes to climate change. It grudgingly ratified Kyoto back in 2004, serving as the crucial final signatory needed to put the treaty into effect. But since then it's focused on nothing but often dirty and inefficient means of expanding its economy. Just last month, in what many interpreted as a thumb in the eye of the UN process, it announced a "climate plan" that would increase its greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2020.

The reason Russia, a Kyoto signatory, can grow its emissions so heedlessly is that emission baselines for the UN process were set at 1990 levels. Of course in 1992 Russia's economy cratered, and with it the country's emissions. The damage was so great that the economy would need to grow substantially to meet a target of 10-15% below 1990 levels by 2020 -- and that's what it plans to do.

Most observers expected Obama to focus exclusively on arms control and the financial crisis when he goes to Russia, since progress on climate seems so hopeless. But as The Guardian reports, the administration fully intends to forge a deal on joint climate action. It's been pulling its ideas from a new report from the Center on American Progress.

The goal is to coax Russia into accepting strong sticks (mandatory targets at the Copenhagen talks) by offering it carrots. One is help entering carbon trading markets. The country is thought to be sitting on some 1.9 billion euros worth of carbon credits -- one of the main reasons it signed Kyoto -- but the government does not have the capacity or infrastructure to monitor emissions and approve projects. The U.S. could help with that, since it has considerable experience with such markets.

The other carrot is efficiency. Russia's energy intensity -- energy use per unit of GDP -- is twice America's, and the highest among the world's high energy consuming countries. Targeted exchange of efficiency technology and know-how could not only bend Russia's emissions curve but make its economy more productive. It's a win-win, but again, the government needs help. (Interestingly, Russia just announced that it will ban some incandescent lights by 2011.)

No big U.S.-Russia agreements on climate are expected this week, but Monday saw the introduction of a working group on energy, formed as part of a high-level bilateral commission created out of the summit. Steven Chu will chair the group on the US side.

G8 + MEF

The MEF is a smaller group of countries than the full UNFCCC, but it's still large and diverse, and there are enormous challenges in the way of getting a substantive agreement this week. Here are a few:

China + India

The overwhelming short-term priorities for developing countries are poverty reduction and economic development, driven in part by coal-based power. That's why China and India have both recently signaled that they will not commit to any binding GHG reduction targets. No, seriously, they won't. Says Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh, “India will not accept any emissions targets -- period. It is the bottom line; a non-negotiable stand. This is not something that India is going to budge on, under any circumstances." OK then!

Both countries (India; China) have also recently expressed ostentatious outrage about the possibility that the United States will impose "carbon tariffs" on imported goods. (A border adjustment provision was inserted in the Waxman-Markey bill before it passed the House.) Developing countries warn of an incipient trade war. Of course, as John Kemp points out, the provisions in the bill are not actually carbon tariffs but "carefully structured as import permits specifically to ensure they are consistent with World Trade Organisation rules." And sure enough, the WTO has signaled that the import permits are legal. China and India fear them.

Obama has spoken publicly against the border adjustments, but as Brad Plumer notes, it's helpful to have that stick in hand to make the carrots look better. (Todd Stern didn't have it when he went to China early last month.)

Of course China is hardly sitting on its hands. It's green stimulus package was both larger and greener than America's. Just this month it boosted its renewable energy targets to 15% by 2020. It looks set to swamp the U.S. in both wind and solar investment this year; between now and 2020, it's expected to spend more on renewables and nuclear than on oil and coal.

The central government has established the State Council's Expert Panel on Climate Change Policy to work on energy development plans that will involve trillions in investment. "Roughly, we need to spend an extra 1 trillion yuan every year to raise energy efficiency," said panel member Bai Quan. Just as importantly, maybe more so, it announced that regional government officials will be judged by reductions in carbon intensity instead of purely by economic growth. Getting career bureaucrats on board is essential to making sure the central planners' schemes become reality. The green shift is dispersing into rural areas as well.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke will head to China later this month to talk turkey. Says Chu, "It's in our interest and China's to explore ways to cooperate for our mutual benefit--by promoting renewable energy, encouraging energy efficiency and cutting pollution." Chu's assistant secretary David Sandalow is hosting a high-level discussion on engaging China on CCS this Thursday in D.C.; a second, focused on finance and political barriers, will happen soon thereafter.

You can imagine Chu announcing a splashy post-combustion CCS development project, or an investment in solar thermal projects, in exchange for back-channel agreements on a timeline for the country to accept hard emission reductions targets (and back off on border adjustment fussing).

What's next

Japan and Brazil are among the other countries with which Obama may pursue bilateral deals, possibly before Copenhagen. The big sticking point with Brazil is avoided deforestation. They don't want it paid for via carbon credits, through the Reduced Emissions through Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) program -- they want it paid for with cold hard cash (so old-fashioned!). So far, no one except Norway is biting.

If all goes well -- an enormous if, of course -- the U.S. negotiating team arrive at Copenhagen with a web of bi- and multi-lateral side deals on clean energy technology sharing, adaptation research, development assistance, trade deals, and more. The world's biggest polluters will arrive with agreements in hand. Developing countries will see signs of real movement on the part of developed nations and soften their rigid opposition to targets.

And out of it all will come a stronger, more robust climate treaty, scaffolded by the self-interest of the many countries invested in side deals premised on continued international action.

That's the hope anyway. Needless to say: domestic achievements notwithstanding, if Obama can pull it off he'll be assured of a place in history.

Related Links:

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

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

A coalition of 47 environment, science, and faith-based groups have sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to pursue a goal of keeping global warming to less than 2 degrees Celcius in upcoming international meetings.

"Failure to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius will have the greatest impact on the most vulnerable nations and communities and will dramatically increase the need for adaptation in the future," they write.

The groups include those on the left side of the green spectrum like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, as well as more moderate groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. The letter represents a notable show of unity between groups currently at odds over climate legislation -- Greenpeace and FOE opposed the bill that passed the House last week, arguing that it is too weak, while EDF and NRDC were key players in brokering the deal.

The organizations call on Obama to endorse the 2-degree threshold next month in Italy at the G8 Summit and the Major Economies Forum on Climate and Energy, to set the playing field for the global climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December. The groups note that 124 countries have agreed on the 2-degree limit, and that the goal is endorsed in the House climate bill.

Here's the letter, and the full list of signatories:

Groups signing the letter:

1 Sky
ActionAid USA
Avaaz.org
CARE
Center for International Environmental Law
Center for Biological Diversity
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Clean Water Action
Climate Action Network International
Climate Solutions
Climate Law & Policy Project
Conservation International
Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice
EcoEquity
Education for Global Warming Solutions
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Energy Action
Environment Northeast
Environment America
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Law & Policy Center
Fresh Energy
Friends of the Earth
Green For All
Greenpeace
ICLEI-USA
Institute for Policy Studies
Interfaith Power and Light
International Forum on Globalization
International Rivers
League of Conservation Voters
National Audubon Society
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Wildlife Federation
Oceana
Oil Change International
Oxfam America
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Pew Environment Group
Sierra Club
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Sustainable Obtainable Solutions
The Nature Conservancy
Union of Concerned Scientists
US Climate Action Network
World Wildlife Fund

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

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

-----

The word "Copenhagen" hangs over climate discussions everywhere from Washington to Wagga Wagga. That’s because in December the world travels to the Danish capital for the 15th Conference of Parties meeting, affectionately referred to as COP15. There, nations large and small hope to reach a new international agreement that would ratchet down global emissions beginning after 2012.

Expectations for a conclusive deal have diminished over the last several months. But negotiations of every stripe continue, and will accelerate through the summer and fall. This week saw nations, businesses, and advocacy groups ramp up activity.

Todd Stern, the U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change, traveled to Paris, where he met with representatives from 15 other major economies and the European Union. Together these nations contribute more than 80 percent of industrial CO2 emissions. European officials pressed the U.S. for a stronger emissions reduction program than the one outlined in current climate legislation. Europe’s own goals are tied to the rest of the world. Leaders there have committed by 2020 to a 20 percent reduction in their emissions, below 1990 levels. If negotiators produce a new agreement in Copenhagen, the E.U. has vowed to raise that target to 30 percent.

Stern told his counterparts that pollution reductions below targets in the current House of Representatives climate bill are politically unfeasible: "We are jumping as high as the political system will tolerate."

Sino the Times: A more promising note rang from Beijing, where the government has issued draft car fuel economy standards tougher than those President Barack Obama announced last week, according to the New York Times. Chinese cars currently average about 35.8 miles per gallon and would be required to reach 42.2 mpg in 2015 (Obama’s new standard is 35.5 mpg by 2016). Chinese officials have yet to address a loophole large enough to drive a Hummer through: Standards apply only to cars produced in China — not imports.

In Beijing, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told Chinese leaders that the "climate crisis is game-changing for the U.S.-China relationship." Pelosi visited Beijing days after the Chinese government issued its formal negotiating stance for Copenhagen, which asks major emitters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 40 percent by 2020. It’s hard to come up with a precise analogy for how difficult such a target would be. But certainly Americans could meet it easily by, uh, eliminating all household and commercial refrigeration.

Fortunately, striking a deal might ultimately cost much less than our entire national store of popsicles, ice cream, and frozen vegetables. Reuters interviews Gao Guangsheng, a top official in the National Coordination Committee for Climate Change, who acknowledges flexibility in the Chinese position. "I think Copenhagen may not be the final negotiation. It may set policy intentions so that we can keep negotiating," he said.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who also went to China, put a finer point on current negotiations between the world’s two largest emitters: "Copenhagen will be defined by what the U.S. and China agree on in the next few weeks."

Other nations admit little or no such sunlight between their formal and informal negotiating positions. India has said it will look to the developed world for definitive leadership before considering a rigorous climate policy. ClimateWire explores the task facing climate advocates in India tilting at this particular windmill. "The Indian government’s agenda will not change until Indians want it to change," Malini Mehra, the founder of the Indian nonprofit Centre for Social Markets told U.N. Foundation audience in Washington, DC.

Climate glasnost?: Even intransigent national positions on climate change can change abruptly and dramatically, as they did after the 2008 U.S. election. They can also do so without warning.

Russia surprised the climate world by finally acknowledging the potentially catastrophic threats of manmade warming, Nature reports. The magnitude of this change might not be immediately apparent. Imagine that Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok.) jettisoned his longstanding ridicule of basic science and climate policy, and adopted a position as rigorous as that of Rep. Henry Waxman, the powerful House committee chairman and lead author of that chamber’s current climate bill. That’s what happened when the natural resources minister briefed the Russian Cabinet in April. Officials calculated that the economy already takes nearly a $2 billion hit every year, because of climate-related flooding, droughts, and storms.

This thaw in climate politics amounts to a major political shift in Russian attitudes. And its intended result is to prevent actual thaw that would amount to a climate shift in Russian latitudes. Edward Schuur of the University of Florida and colleagues write in Nature that warmer temperatures unleash soil carbon stored for many thousands of years in permafrost. Over the next few decades, carbon release from tundra could "overwhelm" the amount that plants use to grow, creating another accelerator for warming.

"If it isn’t boring, it isn’t green": Stern and Pelosi are not the U.S.’s only world travelers this week. Some 500 business leaders convened in the state of Denmark itself, calling on nations to halve their greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a target much lower than the 80 percent or so advocated by Obama and congressional allies.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a London audience that whitewashing the world’s roofs would reflect enough solar energy back into space to match emissions reductions from taking 11 million cars off the road. This is worth keeping in mind in coming weeks and months as Congress considers climate legislation (Legislators have the week off for Memorial Day). Little things, aggregated globally, mean a lot.

"Cap and trade" or no "cap and trade," the White House and Capitol are unlikely to ever change how they address global warming. That’s because both buildings reflect about 240 watts per square meter of solar energy right back up into the sky. (It’s the same principle behind parental encouragement to wear light shirts on sunny summer days. White and light colors reflect energy; black and dark colors absorb it.)

That’s just one approach. These buildings’ whiteness comes from heavy, hydrocarbon paints, which given the size of the buildings probably store several tons of carbon. The buildings themselves keep many tons of carbon out of the atmosphere. The Capitol Rotunda alone, made of Triassic and Cretaceous period sandstone, keeps carbon locked away in rock.

Climate Post is, of course, kidding in pointing out these relatively paltry stores of carbon. But maybe as elected officials and policymakers consider paths forward, they’ll take a moment to meditate on or marvel at the bigger picture — the much bigger picture — of the history they are making (either way), the common U.S. history that led them to this episode, its role in the community of nations, and the community of nations’ current, consequential role in the history of the Earth’s climate and life. How "cool" is that?

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

This piece was co-written by Nina Hachigian and Julian Wong of the Center for American Progress.

-----

We are now entering the six-month period before the U.N. climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, which are intended to hammer out a successor treaty to the Kyoto protocol that expires in 2012. Progress on climate policy domestically will increase U.S. leverage in these talks, but President Barack Obama should look for additional ways to improve the American negotiating position than what we currently have on the table.

In particular we need a better accounting of what the United States—and other countries as well—are doing to achieve meaningful carbon reductions. Importantly, a more detailed analysis would reveal that the American Clean Energy and Security Act, or ACES, recently passed through committee by Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA), would achieve more carbon reduction than first meets the eye.

The soft underbelly of ACES is its 2020 midterm carbon cap targets, which have been assailed by some environmentalists. At 17 percent below 2005 levels these targets apparently give the Obama administration precious little to meet global expectations about U.S. action on climate change. For starters these caps fall below the European Union’s agreed-upon 20 percent reductions below 1990 levels by 2020. If we were to meet our allies at these goals then the European Union will increase their midterm reductions to 30 percent. At its current levels ACES does not trigger this critical shift.

More troubling, there are already clear signs that ACES’s targets are far less than we need to garner China’s full engagement in an international agreement on capping emissions. China, now a larger emitter than the United States, will not sign on to any sort of hard limits to its emissions without a clear commitment by the far-richer United States to do so. To create some negotiating room for itself, Beijing has publicly called for much more aggressive cuts from the developed world—a 40-percent reduction by 2020 from 1990 levels. The U.S. State Department negotiating team, under the leadership of Center for American Progress’ former Senior Fellow Todd Stern, has already indicated that this is an untenable goal for the United States, regardless of what some may consider the possibility of such cuts. This is disappointing especially now that China is taking these issues more seriously than ever before and is showing signs that they may be prepared to commit to some sort of mandate under a new treaty. The coming summer of climate negotiations is already looking long and hot.

Are we then at an impasse? Possibly not. If we look beyond the stated target caps in ACES at the potential reductions in greenhouse gases from its complementary requirements for energy efficiency and intensity improvements, as well as the additional reductions that could potentially be captured by other parts of the legislation in verifiable offsets, then the picture improves. What we essentially need is a different accounting measure which will show the full potential of the legislation to make reductions in emissions below business-as-usual, or BAU scenarios by the energy provisions of the bill plus a flexible architecture in the legislation which can get more cuts down the road. We suggest measuring such progress using “carbon cap equivalents” as a way of profiling a country’s commitment to meeting emissions reductions.

With this carbon cap equivalents approach the better measure of what each country is doing is derived by adding up the full range of supplemental and complementary proposals to each country’s carbon cap and converting this into one comparable figure of what these emissions reductions would effectively amount to if they had been the result of a carbon cap alone. The modeling will be complex, but we should open up the language of the hoped-for Copenhagen treaty so that signatory nations can demonstrate their acceptance of the treaty goals through such equivalents—representing the full range of their policy profile to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—above and beyond their formal cap.

A recent proposal by the Australian delegation to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action calls for something similar to what we are suggesting. Namely, they propose that in Copenhagen we allow countries to meet their nationally appropriate mitigation targets through measures over and above a carbon cap. This is not an attempt to side-step the goals of the UNFCCC process, but rather to provide a more honest comparison of what we are all doing in ways that are not only appropriate for our particular economic histories but also are compatible with the restrictions and opportunities provided by our individual policy frameworks.

If we were to take this broader view, and take measure of the full breadth of complementary actions contemplated by the proposed Waxman-Markey legislation, then we get a different picture of the potential impact of this legislation. According to a recent study by the World Resources Institute, if one considers the full range of complementary provisions in the Waxman-Markey bill, in addition to the “cap-and-trade” portions, such as international forestry projects, industrial performance standards, residential energy-efficiency measures, and international offsets, then emissions reductions of up to 23 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 are realizable—an outcome that would actually meet the European Union’s standards. WRI further projects that such a full range of actions under the bill would lead to emissions reductions of 77 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, a result consistent with what is needed by the international community as a whole to contain the increase of average global temperatures to the catastrophe-averting limit of 2°C.

So too for the way we should approach our negotiating position with the major emitters in the developing world. China appears to be making steady progress toward its goal of achieving a 20-percent reduction in energy intensity by 2010. But because we have framed the solutions to global warming only in terms of the formal carbon caps that have been accepted by a given country, the American media and policymakers don’t generally count other improvements in a country’s carbon profile in their assessment of the country’s commitment to the process or of their real improvements. This needs to be changed in order to get a fair comparison of what everyone is doing.

For example, if one were to look at the last major attempt to push legislation through on climate change in the United States—the Lieberman-Warner Act, which failed in the U.S. Senate last summer—analysis at that time by the Center for Clean Air Policy suggested that the combined unilateral activities of China, Brazil, and Mexico in improvements in energy efficiency and energy intensity would achieve greater effective reductions in carbon emissions below BAU by 2010 than the emissions targets the proposed U.S. legislation would achieve by 2015.

Nonetheless, one of the major objections to Lieberman-Warner, which we are hearing again today in the debate over Waxman-Markey, was that it wasn’t worth doing in a world where China was doing nothing. A more rigorous assessment of what they were doing then could have produced a different assessment of that legislation. A clearer-eyed view of what we all are doing now to make progress could produce a different assessment of what we can get out of the U.S. Congress, and next, the Copenhagen meeting.

So, where do we stand now? ACES is most likely as good as the politics of this moment can possibly deliver. And when a full accounting is given of what can be achieved in terms of its carbon cap equivalent, it becomes a more attractive piece of legislation than it at first may appear. This legislation is not too ambitious for the House and Senate to eventually pass. It could be sufficient as a positive incentive to move along Copenhagen or other international treaties on climate change as well so long as we open up the playing field and allow everyone to count the full measure of their improvements in energy efficiency, intensity, and other complementary polices as part of the demonstration of how they are pulling their weight.

The community of nations needs to be open to such creative solutions to continue to make progress on climate change. In many ways, the Copenhagen process is already far more advanced, nuanced, and realistic than the Kyoto negotiations ever were. Countries are discussing the nitty gritty of greenhouse gas limits, sector by sector, and discussions of registry and verification techniques are far more detailed than ever before. The deadline that the world set for itself this coming December has become the mother of diplomatic invention. Now is the time to step up and deliver from this enormous bounty of creativity that has been spurred by this deadline.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Seventy-nine percent of Americans think President Barack Obama will do a good job protecting the country's environment, according to the latest Gallup poll on the topic, released on Earth Day. That includes 95 percent of Democrats, 75 percent of independents and – most surprisingly -- 65 percent of Republicans.

At 100 days, what has he done to meet those expectations?

"Green Dream Team"

Obama sent good signals on environmental policy early on, with the appointment of a host of advisers that has been called the "green dream team." Perhaps the most strident appointee was Carol Browner, the Clinton-era Environmental Protection Agency head, tapped to serve as special advisor on climate and energy to the White House. Browner was seen as a tough regulator at the EPA, and by all accounts would have been more aggressive had the Clinton White House given her more latitude. She's now charged with coordinating efforts across federal agencies and the administration, a second chance to fulfill her green dreams.

She's joined by a host of other top-ranking officials with solid green credentials: EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, Council for Environmental Quality head Nancy Sutley, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Two key administration figures are also taking the lead on green jobs: Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and green jobs adviser Van Jones.

Within hours of taking office, even before his green team was in place, Obama issued notable environmental directives – calling on the EPA to revisit a request from California and 13 other states to set tougher auto-emissions standards, directing the Department of Transportation to set higher fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks, and pushing for energy and efficiency measures in the economic stimulus package.

So far, his team has taken at least preliminary action to implement all three. Jackson opened a public comment period on the waiver request, which most assume the agency will grant by the end of June. In March, the DOT issued new fuel economy standards for the 2011 model year, boosting the industry-wide standard to 27.3 miles per gallon – an increase of 2 miles per gallon over 2010. DOT estimates this will save 887 million gallons of fuel and cut carbon dioxide emissions by 8.3 million metric tons.

Stimulate this

Perhaps the biggest environmental breakthrough was the economic stimulus package, which contained $62.2 billion in direct spending on green initiatives and $20 billion in green tax incentives, including money for renewable energy, efficiency, improved energy transmission, smart-grid technology, low-income housing retrofits, rail transit, and green jobs training.

The next big green moves came in the administration's first budget, which included an additional $15 billion in investments in energy and efficiency projects, and increased funding for rail – on top of the $8 billion for Amtrak in the stimulus – in order to create a "world-class passenger rail system" across the country.

The budget's most ambitious green feature was a cap-and-trade plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Though the Senate rejected the possibility of getting this approved through the budget process, the Obama team's inclusion of cap-and-trade in the budget showed how serious it is about climate change.

Dude, where's my carbon?

On Earth Day, Chu, Jackson, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in support of a climate and energy bill from Democratic leadership. In the meantime, however, they're not hesitating to start acting within the powers they already have.

On April 17, the EPA responded to a 2007 directive from the Supreme Court calling on the agency to determine whether planet-warming greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and welfare. Unsurprisingly, the EPA found that they do, which kickstarts the process of regulating those emissions under the Clean Air Act. The agency has also started building an inventory of greenhouse-gas emissions from some 13,000 major polluters, an integral first step to reducing them.

EPA is expected to begin issuing regulations to curb greenhouse-gas emissions from cars and power plants by the end of 2009, though that process will almost certainly will result in litigation.

All this increases the pressure on Congress to pass a bill to specifically address carbon dioxide emissions. Nearly everyone, from industry lobbyists to deep-green enviros to the EPA itself, agrees that a new bill would be best. But the Obama administration is not going to wait for one to begin acting, according to Jackson. "The race is clearly on and time is of the essence," she told reporters last week.

Other highlights of Obama's first 100 days:

Letdowns? There have been a handful. Enviros still aren't particularly happy with the appointment of corn-hugger Tom Vilsack as secretary of agriculture. And though they haven't been too critical of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, most agree that there were better candidates for the job. The sudden resignation of Jon Cannon, a former top EPA lawyer nominated for EPA deputy administrator, was mildly embarrassing.

There's also some concern that administration officials have been downplaying expectations for getting a climate bill passed in the U.S. by the end of the year, and for reaching a global climate deal in Copenhagen in December – even though climate envoy Todd Stern was given a hero's welcome at preliminary climate talks in March.

Despite a few disappointments, nearly every action the administration has taken here at home, and the public face they're showing to the world, indicates that they are quite serious about making comprehensive climate and energy reform a reality within their first year in office. And they've got plenty to show for their first 100 days.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Punctuation can be the greatest impediment to getting nations to see eye-to-eye on any issue.Jennie Faber via Flickr

It was only a comma, albeit a hotly disputed one. For me, the single punctuation mark represents a major reason why the world may fail to get to grips with global warming in time, and why a meeting this week may provide the best chance of a breakthrough.

The comma sat there, in all its splendor, deep in a UN negotiating text, penned in square brackets to show it was a matter of dispute. For days top diplomatic talent from the world's capitals argued about whether it should remain, or be removed, without getting anywhere near agreement. And I was trying, as a reporter, to make sense of it.

Eventually, I had enough. My wife was with me at the negotiations, in New York, and we decided it was time for a break. I had to give a lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, if I remember rightly, about a book I had written, and so we hired a car and set off slowly through New England.

It was just after Labor Day; the weather was lovely, prices were down, and the pound was reasonably strong. We headed for Cape Cod, stopping off on the way in Mystic and Stonington in Connecticut. We rode on scooters around Martha's Vineyard, went birding at dawn on Nantucket, and enjoyed arguing with the actors playing the pilgrims at the Plymouth Plantation. After ten glorious days we returned, much happier, to Manhattan -- only to find the bracketed comma still the center of high-level international debate.

I remember that Ronald Reagan's campaign for the presidency was getting into full swing, so it must have been 1980. I know that the presence or absence of the comma changed the meaning of the sentence it adorned, but cannot begin to remember what that sentence was about. The talks were the so-called "global negotiations," now long forgotten, on establishing a "new economic order" between rich and poor countries. Predictably, the talks ran -- if such a word can be used to describe their snail's pace -- into the sand.

Little, alas, has changed in the three decades since. I have, I admit, yet to spot a bracketed comma in the texts of coming out of the various international climate negotiations, but their pace seems no faster. Week after week alarming evidence piles up about the impact that global warming is already having around the world. But to say that progress is glacial is to do an injustice to the rapidity of what is happening to the world's rivers of ice.

Early this month, ten days of negotiations in Bonn made almost no progress, even though the scientists have convincingly shown that time is getting desperately short if a new agreement is to be negotiated in Copenhagen in December. The next round of climate talks, not much more than a month away now, is not expected to get much further.

The negotiating conferences are strange events. Enclosed in a tight bubble in almost identical conference halls around the globe, they quickly lose contact with the world outside their air-conditioned anonymity. High passions arise over apparantly arcane phrases. Days pass in fruitless stalemate, and success or failure depends on whether last minute sessions headed by ministers, who have flown at the last minute, achieve breakthrough in punishing all-night sessions -- or whether the need to vacate the center to make way for the next event (in one case an underwear convention) forecloses on saving the world.

All the same, there have been stunning successes when the international community gathers to confront a shared threat. Perhaps the greatest was at the other end of the 1980s, when the world managed, just, to agree on the 1987 Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer. The wording of the agreed treaty was so sensitive that the organizers prohibited its translation into the other official UN languages, like French and Spanish, for fear that the resulting minute changes in meaning would wreck the consensus. But it led to the world phasing out ozone depleting services far faster than anyone thought possible.

The breakthrough happened because the negotiations had two vital elements. One was a determined headbanger, Mostafa Tolba -- at that time the executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme -- who thought nothing of cooping up the key negotiators for talks in an airless room, and refusing to let them out until they has reached agreement. The other was the drive for success by a powerful nation, in this case the United States under Reagan (though it is thought that this was partly because the old boy did not know what was going on). Most of the other successes have had similar vital ingredients.

And there lies the importance of this week's meeting in Washington. Barack Obama invited the world's key nations -- responsible for 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions -- to try to inject enegy into the global climate negotiations and prepare for a special climate summit in July, to be held in concert with the G8 meeting.

The U.S. is back in the lead on climate, and the meeting that happened on Monday and Tuesday might just provide the top-level impetus needed to get things going. If it doesn't, we may end up less concerned with the commas than with a full stop. Period.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

The international global warming negotiations in Bonn, Germany have just wrapped up. They began with a loud applause as U.S. Special Climate Envoy Todd Stern announced that the U.S. is back. And they ended with the reality of the work that needs to be done over the next 8 months to ensure a strong agreement in Copenhagen. There is a lot to be done, but there are hints that with strong leadership the pieces can fall into place.

While little progress was concluded at this meeting, some signs emerged of how the pieces will fall into place for the four key elements essential to getting a strong agreement:

Here are some issues that arose that will need to come together over the next couple of months if the world is to commit itself to a strong path to solve global warming.

The U.S. is "back"

Special Envoy Todd Stern's remarks provided a strong signal of President Obama's commitment to reengage the U.S. in international negotiations (full remarks are available here). Or as he put it:

... I want to say on behalf of President Obama and his entire team that we are very glad to be back, we want to make up for lost time, and we are seized with the urgency of the task before us.

His speech also reaffirmed two key pieces that the U.S. will be bringing to the negotiations:

Implications of the emerging international elements in the U.S. climate legislation

Only a day after Todd Stern's remarks, the "sprint" began to pass a clean energy and global warming bill in the US. Chairman Waxman and Markey from the U.S. House of Representatives released a discussion draft which contains a number of key tools to help secure a strong international agreement in Copenhagen later this year.

How these provisions play out in the U.S. debate (and other capitals around the world) will be a preview of what can be agreed in Copenhagen as these are crucial elements that countries will have to bring to Copenhagen.

Developing country action and relation to incentives

While there are still a number of proposals by countries for the "developing country emissions reduction package", there was a lot of frank conversation about the development of "low carbon strategies" by developing countries. While the specifics of these strategies are still under discussion, they essentially outline a medium-term strategy of where the country can head in a carbon constrained world while meeting their development objectives, what actions they can implement on their own, and what actions they could achieve with assistance from the developed world.

Under these strategies developing countries could commit to reduce emissions in key sectors of the economy and receive incentives for further action through the carbon market and technology agreements. This would mean evolving from "offsets" to sectoral approaches for developing countries.

Unfortunately this aspect is being debated at the moment as a "chicken and egg scenario" (as I discussed here) -- with developing countries not willing to show what actions they can do until the developed countries detail what assistance they can provide and developed countries not outlining what assistance they will provide until they know what actions the developing countries will undertake. It is a dangerous dynamic with the future of the planet hanging in the balance.

It is essential to include deforestation reduction efforts in the Copenhagen agreement

While deforestation reductions weren't central to the negotiations in Bonn, Germany there was a surprising moment where a large number of countries signaled quite forcefully that they want deforestation reductions included in the Copenhagen agreement. This is a strong sign that we might finally help create the tools to reducing the deforestation emissions that account for about 20% of global emissions.

We need the political leaders at the highest level to come together before Copenhagen for a strong agreement

Climate negotiators will need their leaders to point them in the right direction if we are going to get a strong agreement. There are a lot of very difficult political decisions that will need to be agreed before and during the Copenhagen meeting. And these will require decisions "above the pay grade" of climate negotiators if we are to have any chance.

A number of venues are emerging for these leaders to start to send the signal that there is space for a strong agreement…that countries are ready to set aside their differences and get into the business of designing the workable strategies. These world leaders will be meeting a number of times, including at the Major Economies Forum just announced by President Obama, the G20, the Summit of the Americas, and a number of key bilateral engagements such as the US-China dialogue (that will bring together countries representing most of the world's global warming pollution). I hope that time is used wisely.

World leaders want an agreement in Copenhagen

At the recent G20 meeting in London the leaders of the largest 20 economies in the world (and the world's biggest emitters) agreed to the following direction for their negotiators (PDF):

Closing the gap over the coming months … it can be done

There a number of promising ideas that are beginning to emerge. But we'll need to quickly get past the posturing and into structuring the strong agreement by making some of the necessary difficult choices.

Over the next month or so, developing a strong international response to global warming will focus on the discussions occurring in the Major Economies Forum and back in Bonn, Germany in June. At the June meeting, countries will have to start to "show their cards" as they'll have a draft negotiating text which will focus the negotiations.

So there is still a lot of work to be done and not a lot of time, but some promising signs are emerging that it can still be done. All paths will inevitably lead through the U.S. as countries are waiting for U.S. leadership.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Photo: The Shane H via Flickr

While most of the climate negotiations in Bonn have been focused on key issues around the overall agreement, as I've discussed here and here, there has also been some side discussions on other key issues. I've been involved in a couple of discussions (outside the formal negotiations) around how aviation will contribute to efforts to solve global warming.

The aviation industry has had a mandate under the International Civil Aviation Organization to develop a policy framework to reduce their global warming pollution since 1998, but has made only minor progress. Some progress has occurred in the European Union where they recently finalized their plans to require that all flights to and from the EU will be required to reduce their global warming pollution. But progress has been very limited in other regions.

How global aviation emissions are addressed in the agreement in Copenhagen has gained some traction in the negotiations.

I participated in an aviation symposium in Geneva, Switzerland the other day where I was on a panel to discuss economic frameworks for driving solutions in the aviation sector. I used to actively work for solutions to aviation's emissions, so after participating in these recent events I was struck with two points.

There is a growing momentum for clean energy and global warming solutions across the world -- as a part of US efforts (e.g., the beginning of the US "sprint"), global efforts for a strong agreement in Copenhagen, and elsewhere. These efforts are working towards a transformation to clean energy with significant cuts in global warming pollution in the medium to long-term. So when I see graphs put up by the aviation industry showing continued growth of their emissions through 2030 (and presumably beyond) I have to scratch my head ... as I saw in Geneva. How does this growing emissions path for aviation fit in with the world's efforts to spur clean energy and global warming solutions? Somewhere there is a disconnect.

I was also struck with how little had changed in the 4 plus years that I have been basically "out of the aviation emissions debate". I heard things like: the aviation industry is working on a solution, we have done a lot to decrease our energy use over the last 70 years, and we don't need a policy framework to address our emissions. I heard many of these same things 4 years ago. Each of these statements was a mixed perspective (yes, but). The reality is that despite some progress on a couple of fronts, more clearly needs to be done so that aviation is reducing its absolute global warming -- not going in the opposite direction.

But I also participated in an event at the global warming negotiations in Bonn, Germany put together by the Aviation Global Deal group. This group, made up of four of the world's largest airlines and the Climate Group, discussed their proposal for how aviation's global warming pollution could be addressed in the Copenhagen agreement. This group discussed a proposal to apply a cap on global warming pollution from the international aviation sector. It would also be designed to generate revenues to support adaptation, deforestation reductions, and technology in developing countries. These airlines provide some hints that there are voices in the aviation industry that recognize that they need to be part of the solution to global warming...not simply "waiting".

There was also discussion of a proposal to apply a levy on each airline flight to generate funding to support the most vulnerable developing countries in adapting to the impacts of global warming. This proposal from 49 of the world's poorest countries has gained some interest in the negotiations as a way to support efforts to address adaptation. It could generate some much needed funding to support adaptation in the most vulnerable countries.

While the details of each of these proposals differ to some extent, their mere existence suggests that the world (and the aviation industry) might finally support an effort to reduce their global warming pollution.

Let's hope that some solutions to these emissions will be included in the Copenhagen agreement. After all, we can't wait for the possibility of future solutions to emerge from other forums.

Cross-posted from the Natural Resources Defense Council Switchboard.

Related Links:

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

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

A Gristy guide to the COP15 climate talks

People always ask me: how do we get a strong international commitment to solve global warming pollution? What "tools" do U.S. negotiators (and others) have to secure an equitable commitment from all major emitters to reduce global warming pollution? How do we support the most vulnerable developing countries in adapting to the impacts of global warming?

These questions are extremely relevant right now as the international climate negotiations are getting serious, the US is finally back, and Representatives Waxman and Markey just released a "discussion draft" for spurring clean energy and global warming solutions (full draft is available here).

While others in the NRDC team have provided some insights on key elements of the discussion draft and what it means for creating clean energy and clean jobs (see all posts here), I'll discuss the international provisions. What do these provisions mean for helping to secure a strong international commitment in Copenhagen this December?

This discussion draft provides some very important tools for US negotiators so they can help to secure a strong international global warming commitment. This begins the serious debate in the US that will lay the foundation for getting a strong agreement in Copenhagen that puts the world on the path to creating clean energy and solving global warming.

The discussion draft does this in four ways:

Driving energy and global warming solutions. This discussion draft proposes a set of energy and climate policies which will result in US emissions sources being reduced to:

And, this discussion draft adds to these emissions reductions in two ways:

The combination of these efforts is estimated to produce emissions reductions resulting in US emissions being 30-36% below 2005 levels in 2020 (or 19-26% below 1990 levels).

Creating tools for US negotiators to secure strong global warming commitments. The discussion draft contains essentially four tools for securing a strong global warming commitment from all major players:

These are powerful tools that the US negotiators can use to help get a strong international agreement that puts the world effectively on the path to solving global warming.

International carbon offset access rules. International offsets will be issued only to developing countries that are part of a multilateral or bilateral agreement with the US. The program is to identify sectors of specific countries where emissions credits can be generated only on a sectoral basis (as I've discussed in evolving from "offsets" to sectoral approaches for developing countries). There are a number of criteria that will be used to determine if a country and sector will be eligible for crediting only on a sectoral basis, including:

Credits for these sectors in the country shall be on the basis of an established performance level. And these performance levels shall be established at a level lower than the business-as-usual level. To better visualize this framework, the following graph provides an example.

Sectors not covered by the sectoral regulation would also be available to generate credits, but these sources might not have to be controlled at a sectoral level before they can generate credits. For example, tree replanting (formally known as afforestation and reforestation) might not have to be controlled at a sectoral level, but could instead be done at a project level.

Incentives for reductions in deforestation emissions. The discussion contains two incentive mechanisms to reduce emissions from deforestation, which account for up to 20% of global emissions and are a critical piece of solving global warming:

Market readiness and emissions reductions through the "supplemental". As I discussed above, there is also a separate program to achieve deforestation emissions reductions and to prepare countries for active participation in the deforestation carbon credits. The discussion draft sets aside 5% of the allowance value in 2020 from the emissions trading program for this purpose.

The program is designed to achieve a specific amount of reductions in deforestation emissions which "supplement" the reductions achieved by the US national emissions target (as discussed above). And the program is designed to support efforts to avoid leakage -- i.e., shifting deforestation to a country that isn't currently deforesting at high rates -- in countries with largely intact native forests.

There are number of activities which can be supported to achieve this overall emissions reduction objective, including national or subnational activities, enforcement, and efforts to address illegal logging.

Carbon credits for national deforestation reductions. In addition, to the sectoral crediting discussed above, emissions offsets can also be generated from countries that reduce their national deforestation emissions for all relevant carbon stocks. In order to generate emissions reduction credits, the country will have had to reduce their deforestation emissions below a pre-determined "nationally appropriate mitigation commitment or action" that establishes a trajectory that would result in zero gross deforestation not later than 20 years after they enter the program (see my discussion of the Brazil plan to get a sense of this baseline for one country). There are protections for indigenous rights and provisions to ensure that financing flows to the local actors on the ground in the country.

Incentives for clean energy export to developing countries that take on their own commitment. The discussion draft includes the creation of an International Clean Technology Fund to:

Eligible countries must have undertaken nationally appropriate mitigation activities through an international agreement or by a Presidential determination that they have taken a substantial reduction that is monitored and verified.

Developing country adaptation and reducing national security threats. The draft creates an International Climate Change Adaptation Program to assist the most vulnerable developing countries to adapt to global warming. And this program is aimed at preventing "potentially significant threat multiplier for instability around the world". My colleague Melanie Nakagawa will provide more detail on the adaptation provisions.

----------------------

As we work to get a strong international agreement to address global warming in Copenhagen later this year, it is important that the US climate negotiators have the right tools in hand to secure a strong commitment. We don't have many tools in our "toolbox" and we need to use each of them effectively.

There has been a lot of attention to this discussion draft and the US clean energy and global warming solutions at the negotiations that I'm participating in right now in Germany. The sprint has begun and the US is moving in the right direction (at long last)!

Related Links:

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

Environmental education in Guinea Bissau

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Senior legislators from 17 countries met in Washington, D.C., on Monday to discuss their role in shaping climate action plans as world leaders continue to hash out the details of a new international climate treaty.

The Global Legislators Organization (GLOBE) is hosting an International Commission on Climate Change and Energy Security summit, which comes just after climate negotiators kicked off their meeting in Bonn, Germany, on Sunday, and just before the leaders of the world's biggest economies plan to gather in London for the G-20 summit on Thursday.

GLOBE was formed in 1989 to allow legislators from G8 and major developing nations to work together outside of formal negotiations. The new panel that kicked off on Monday aims to "create political conditions" for a successful international climate treaty to come out of talks in Copenhagen in December.

"There are certain political realities that need to be put on the table if countries are to ratify a Copenhagen climate deal," said GLOBE President Elliot Morley, a former Labor representative in the British Parliament. "As legislators, we are uniquely suited to explore the trade-offs that will be made at the U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen."

Participants include legislators from the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Korea, China, India, Russia, Japan, Italy, Mexico, Denmark, South Africa, Brazil, Germany, Australia, Canada, France, and Indonesia -- the same nations President Obama has invited to a Major Economies Forum on climate change next month.

An international climate treaty would need to be approved by the national legislatures of participating nations, and as we've seen in the United States Congress, that can be quite a hurdle. The Senate voted unanimously against joining in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, as Morley pointed out on Monday. Like U.S. legislators, the GLOBE participants represent unique regional interests that will affect their own votes on a successor to Kyoto.

Representing the U.S. on the panel is Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chair of both the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment and the Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming. He's expected to introduce draft climate legislation with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) on Tuesday. Markey noted in his opening statement on Monday that while the legislative climate has changed in the United States, these meetings will be key for moving a treaty forward.

"Change is coming because science demands it, the people demand it, and the planet demands it," said Markey. "Together we have to build a sustainable future ... It will not be easy, either at the national or international level."

United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer, who addressed the meeting via satellite from Bonn, reiterated his contention that treaty talks must lead to near-term emission-reduction targets for both developing and developed nations, and a system to provide financial resources to help poorer nations invest in clean technologies and adapt to climate change.

But legislators had tough questions for de Boer about many of the outstanding concerns in international climate policy, like the role of deforestation, biofuels, and carbon-capture-and-storage technologies.

In their own speeches, leaders from China and Brazil emphasized that their countries are already taking action. "We are ready to participate in a friendly and sincere discussion on climate change topics," said Chinese legislator Pu Haiqing, noting that his nation has increased use of solar power and taken some of the dirtiest power plants offline.

But Pu also called on developed nations to take the lead. "Current climate change is largely due to the long-term, accumulated emissions of developed countries," he said. "[We] have common but differentiated responsibilities."

Over the course of the two-day GLOBE summit, legislators will discuss economic concerns and stimulus efforts, as well as the major political hurdles in their home countries. They plan to submit a statement before the G20 conference, which starts on Wednesday, and will convene again in Rome June 11 to 12 before the G8 meeting. They will issue a report on the outcome of their meetings ahead of the Copenhagen climate talks in December.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’