See how countries would fare in the 2010 Green World Cup
On the Environment
With cap in place, BP begins capturing crude
BP puts containment cap on gushing Gulf well pipe
Power companies lie back as push begins for Senate bill
Oil begins hitting Alabama's Dauphin Island
Key Countries Partner to Reduce Deforestation Emissions
U.S. to halt 33 exploration rigs in deepwater review
Ruptured BP well tops Valdez as worst U.S. spill
The Deepwater Oil Release Impact on Marine Life
BP reduces estimate of how much oil it is capturing
Most large companies plan to increase spending on climate
National Academy of Sciences urges swift U.S. action to curb emissions Obama to set up oil spill panel Oil spill could be among worst ever House Republicans offer bill to keep climate out of NEPA reviews Arctic team reports unusual conditions near Pole
The big question: How much CO2 can the Earth hold?
'Green city' builders facing technological, financial hurdles
Troubled Senate emissions bill to undergo EPA analysis
Oil spill in Gulf of Mexico ‘could be worse than Exxon Valdez disaster’
Russia and Norway strike Arctic sea border deal
This video looks back at Earth Day April 22, 1970 and the environmental successes and challenges that Connecticut faces. Over the past 40 years, Connecticut has made great progress in cleaning up our air, waters and lands, preserving open space, protecting fish and wildlife, and protecting the public health. Watch here.
Global climate deal best option, but road rough-UN
China-led bloc to consider Kyoto climate pact future
Feel free to doubt climate change: just don’t deny it
Poll finds strong support for energy overhaul 'cap and refund'
Greenhouse gas regs won't affect small businesses
Obama's chief of staff huddles with enviro leaders
White House rhetoric may signal climate-bill surge
Allergies Worse Than Ever? Blame Global Warming
Climate treaty realities push leaders to trim priority lists
'Green' jobs growing, but salaries lag
Testifying before the USCC
A guest post by Angel Hsu
On April 8, I was invited to testify before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) on China’s green energy and environmental policies. The purpose of the USCC is to “monitor, investigate, and submit to Congress an annual report on the national security implications” of the U.S.-China relationship and to “provide recommendations where appropriate, to Congress for legislative and administrative action.” This particular hearing was divided into four sessions, drawing upon perspectives from the administration, implications of China’s domestic and international policies, and industry.
I was in the esteemed company of Dr. Elizabeth Economy, C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director of Asia Studies at the Council of Foreign Relations, and Rob Bradley, Director of the International Climate Policy objective in the Climate Change and Energy Program at the World Resources Institute (and my former colleague). The Commission specifically asked me to talk about China’s role in the UN Climate Change Change conference in Copenhagen last December, and the implications of China’s actions for the United States and developing countries.
Given the heat China came under immediately following Copenhagen for supposedly “wrecking” the Copenhagen deal, this was an important opportunity to move past the “sound and fury” (to quote my co-panelist Rob Bradley) of the negotiations in December to provide insights and recommendations as to how the U.S. can work constructively with China in the months leading up to Cancun.
In my written testimony, I made several points that I then reiterated to the Commissioners during the hearing. These were:
- China is acting on climate change, and they’re acting because they want to. Questioning the motivations of the Chinese toward climate change was a key aim of the Commission. If precedent has shown anything, it’s that China engages internationally on global issues where it perceives an alignment with domestic interests. In the case of climate change, China has adopted a similar “scientific outlook” with respect to climate change and the negotiations themselves, bringing an army of academics, scientists, and technocrats who have all probably read the IPCC reports (as opposed to the U.S. delegation, whose roster consisted primarily of political representatives). National concerns over energy and food security, drought, changing monsoon patterns, rising sea levels, and social stability – the consequences of climate change – resonate with both the Chinese leadership and increasingly the Chinese public. Therefore, China has made significant commitments to address their current and growing contribution to global climate change, most notably a pledge to reduce carbon intensity 40 to 45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. And since Copenhagen, China has shown that they are not backing down from this pledge either.
- How can we believe the Chinese are making real progress in their mitigation actions? Multiple on-the-ground government, non-government, academic, and industry partners are working with Chinese partners to build capacity to measure, report, and verify energy and climate data in China. Within China, there is strong evidence that the high-level messages voiced are being echoed on the ground. While the central government has been investing huge amounts Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has been partnering with Tsinghua University to evaluate many of China’s energy conservation programs. A Chinese NGO called the Innovation Center for the Environment and Transportation (iCET) is partnering with the U.S.-based Climate Registry to create China’s first voluntary emissions registry. The World Resources Institute is training Chinese companies to use internationally standardized greenhouse gas accounting tools and methods. My colleagues and I at the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy have been working for the past two years with the Chinese government to systematically measure environmental performance in all 31 Chinese provinces.
- The U.S. is falling behind in terms of mobilizing clean energy and technology partnerships with China. The U.S is poised at a critical juncture to break the “suicide pact” with China and to capitalize on opportunities to cooperate together on climate change. Unfortunately, the United States is already late in coming to the game with respect to green energy and environmental cooperation with China. The Chinese already have longstanding partnerships with E.U. nations, several developing countries, and others. For example, China and Japan also announced before Copenhagen a suite of 42 projects in clean energy and environmental cooperation as part of a decade-long partnership on these issues. In relation to developing countries, last November China pledged $10 billion worth of aid to Africa, which includes construction of 100 clean energy projects. Fortunately, while the U.S. may have shown up late to the game, it’s not over yet. All the pieces are in place for the United States and China to work together on clean energy research, energy efficiency, renewable energy, clean coal and carbon capture and sequestration projects, and clean vehicle technology through mechanisms such as the ten-year Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), the Ten Year Energy and Environment Framework, and the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center formed last July.
The Commission followed the testimonies with some thoughtful questions that reflected their particular interest in some of the economic and trade implications of China’s climate policies. A line of rhetoric that has become pervasive in the media and throughout Capitol Hill of late is the notion that China is somehow beating the U.S. in terms of clean energy and technology and that we’re losing jobs to China as a result. While it’s true that China is putting more than the U.S. in clean energy investments ($34.6 billion versus the U.S.’s $18.6 billion, according to this recent report by Pew), this does not necessarily mean that China is winning the race yet nor is it necessarily constructive to speak singularly in these terms. However, after hearing from several staffers on Capitol Hill, it seems that this sound byte is what spurs Senators and Representatives these days. My argument to the USCC was that we need to move past this idea of who’s winning what and figure out where we can run the race together. As the old adage goes, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em?
One of the Commissioners also brought up border-tax adjustment policies, which are increasingly being debated on Capitol Hill as a provision in an energy or climate bill, to address competitiveness concerns of U.S. businesses who fear economic losses specifically to countries like China if the U.S. takes on significant climate actions and China does not. This was an issue Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change, brought up in Copenhagen and received a vitriolic response from the Chinese, who remarked that China would not tolerate such trade measures because they violate WTO regulations (although the jury is still out as to whether border-tax adjustment policies do actually violate WTO rules). Both Rob Bradley and I cautioned the Commission in their recommendations to Congress that they should tread carefully in these waters because carbon taxation could go both ways. The Chinese have been considering taxing importers of energy and carbon-intensive goods, which could hurt the U.S. (take a look at these import/export figures of U.S.-China trade). Furthermore, I argued to the USCC that a border-tax adjustment policy by the U.S. toward China might not produce the intended policy changes or environmental effects in China, given the source of much of Chinese emissions. My former colleagues at WRI in conjunction with the Peterson Institute for International Economics produced a fascinating analysis of competitiveness issues between the U.S. and China, looking at energy and carbon intensive sectors such as iron, steel, copper, aluminum, cement, glass, paper, and basic chemicals – all of which represent the biggest sources of Chinese emissions. What they found is that China’s exports of these carbon-intensive goods to the U.S. are relatively small. I made the point to the USCC that most of Chinese cement, which accounts for over half of China’s CO2 emissions, is consumed domestically. Therefore, as the study concludes, such policies could actually sour U.S.-China cooperation on climate change and not produce the desired results:
“[...] unilateral efforts like trade measures that attempt to impose comparable costs on carbon-intensive imports may not have the desired effects, and could threaten international cooperation on climate change. Many of the trade-specific measures are intended to bring China to the climate negotiating table. However, China’s exports of carbon-intense goods to the U.S. are relatively small. Therefore, trade measures aimed at leveraging China to adopt stricter emissions regulations domestically would, in fact, provide little incentive and could sour the prospects for international cooperation.”
A full transcript of the hearing, including the Q&A will be available on the USCC’s website soon. When it becomes available, I’ll let you know so you can read about how I gave my speech using an Apple iPad©, encountered a technical snafu, and was called an “early adopter” by the Commissioners. It was a good icebreaker, but then I was confused when they proceeded to ask me all about the iPad, and not China …
UN body to look at meat and climate link
France Abandons Plan for Carbon Tax
Don't risk 'clean energy' future to save coal jobs
Tax breaks for 'green' equipment signed into law
Emission-cutting plans approved for U.S., Canadian Coasts
U.K. projects 100,000 jobs by 2030 in carbon capture
Startup turns wastewater into products
'Significant gaps' in federal preparedness
Toxic waste weighs on revival of nuclear industry
States take sides in 'endangerment' legal brawl
Pairing oil recovery with carbon capture a win-win for U.S.
U.S. greenhouse gases fell 2.9% in 2008
Study raises question of emission 'imports'
More Americans say global warming exaggerated
Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun
Bloom Energy claims breakthrough on fuel cells
Emissions pledges not enough to keep temperature in check
Household savings could help with costs of climate bill
World’s coral reefs could disintegrate by 2100
Obama admin unveils $2.2B cleanup plan
In the run-up to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, Maurice Strong, the Conference’s Secretary General, noted that there are only two possibilities when the world’s leaders come together: success or real success. In defiance of this characterization, the Copenhagen Summit in December turned out to be neither. Although there had been no possibility of a “beyond Kyoto” treaty for many months, the extent of the chaos surrounding the negotiations was unpredicted and unfortunate. Poor management on the part of the Danish authorities coupled with the undisciplined behavior on the part of various other parties led to negotiations that spun badly out of control.
Not all the news is bad, of course. After years of failing to
participate seriously in the climate change negotiations, the United
States is finally back in the game. The principle of “common but
differentiated responsibilities” was, moreover, reestablished as the
foundation for any new treaty. China and India signaled that they are
prepared to take action. And progress was made on the important issues
of forest protection, adaptation, and funding for the least developed
Yet Copenhagen has left us with a number of important lessons that must shape the climate negotiations process going forward. First, the participation of too many parties is bound to make the negotiations unwieldy and unproductive. The best path to reaching an effective climate deal would accordingly involve a set of “pivotal” states. A group of about 15 nations, selected based on demographic logic (i.e., the scale of their emissions), bolstered by 5-8 other countries that serve as representatives of key groups, such as the island nations, would make sense. Such a core negotiating group should produce an agreement to present to the rest of the world that provides incentives for all to participate in the form of funding for mitigation and adaptation.
Second, the science-driven agenda promoted at Copenhagen by the EU proved not to be sufficient. Reaching an effective climate deal has clearly become an issue of power politics. Although good climate policy requires a foundation in good science, climate change cannot be solved based on science alone. What is needed is commitment by key countries, including the U.S., China, and India. Such an agreement, however, will be difficult as long as China remains hesitant about revealing emissions data—and the U.S. cannot mobilize for action. In the modern world, transparency is essential, and sound data, metrics, and indicators are fundamentally good policy. And part of the challenge in getting the U.S. Congress to vote for a climate change action plan stems from a fear that major trade competitors, most notably China, will not take real action. So reporting and verification mechanisms are critical to having climate change legislation move in the United States.
Given the challenges that are present both domestically for the United States and globally in terms of forming a “beyond Kyoto” agreement, even if the focus is narrowed to a pivotal group of states, it may now be time to think about a new approach. While national governments must ultimately work together in forming a comprehensive solution to climate change, an alternative parallel plan should involve a more disaggregated set of incentives, implemented on a country-by-country or subnational basis, directed toward promoting a post-carbon future. National and local jurisdictions moving forward after Copenhagen should accordingly work to engage the private sector in pursuing green energy innovation.
Get This: Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow
Can Climate Shift the Biology of Ecosystems?
Federal production curbs taking big bite out of economy
Nature offers road map to corporate sustainability, professor says
Yemen’s water crisis eclipses al Qaeda threat