Climate Change News - January 25, 2010

Sen. Murkowski Offers Measure to Overturn EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Controls

On January 21, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) introduced a “resolution of disapproval” to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act.  In December 2009, the EPA announced its finding that GHGs pose a danger to public health and welfare, compelling the agency to prepare rules to regulate the gases in the absence of Congressional legislation. The disapproval resolution was filed pursuant to the provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and included 38 co-sponsors:  35 Republicans and three Democrats (Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska).   “The Clean Air Act was written by Congress to regulate criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases, and its implementation remains subject to oversight and guidance from elected representatives,” Murkowski said. “We should continue our work to pass meaningful energy and climate legislation, but in the meantime, we cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA’s efforts to impose back-door climate regulations with no input from Congress.”

Upon introduction, a disapproval resolution is referred to the committee of jurisdiction, which in this case will be the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. If the committee does not favorably report the resolution, it may be discharged upon petition by 30 Senators. Once a disapproval resolution is placed on the Senate calendar, it is then subject to expedited consideration on the Senate floor, and not subject to filibuster. In order to become law, the resolution must also be passed by the House of Representatives and signed by the President.

For additional information see: Washington Post , Reuters , New York Times , Senator Murkowski Press Release

UN Officials Discuss Prospects for Climate Deal This Year

On January 20, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Yvo de Boer spoke at the UN’s first news conference following its December climate summit in Copenhagen. The summit resulted in an agreement known as the Copenhagen Accord, where nations agreed to submit voluntary emissions reduction targets, with a “soft deadline” of January 31. The next few weeks will serve as a “cooling-off period that gives countries useful time to work with each other,” de Boer said. Next week, several major developing countries that helped form the Accord — China, India, Brazil and South Africa — will meet in New Delhi to review the agreement and plan for the next phase of talks. The United States has not yet submitted its emissions pledge, but de Boer indicated that the UN will hold the nation to the promise made in Copenhagen. “Whatever route is taken, the President of the United States committed to a 17 percent emissions reduction in Copenhagen," de Boer said. "The president of the United States committed to more ambitious emissions reductions for 2030 and 2050. And it is those statements to which the international community will hold the government of the United States accountable."

On January 19, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, spoke at a news conference at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi, expressing hope that a binding climate deal is “reachable” this year. "I think we have a very short period of time in which the world has to get its act together. And if that happens, then certainly Mexico could produce a binding agreement," Pachauri said. "It's a daunting, but certainly a doable, prospect," he said, referring to the next summit, which is planned for the end of this year in Mexico.

For additional information see: AFP , New York Times , Reuters , Business Week , Greenwire

Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Spending Could Mean Boost for Big Oil

On January 21, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of overturning a ban on political spending by corporations in candidate elections. President Obama called the decision “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (often referred to as McCain-Feingold) that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions. “This decision will open the floodgates for oil companies like Exxon to spend vast sums of money to influence the outcome of federal elections in favor of candidates who stand with them and against a clean energy future,” said Gene Karpinski, President of the League of Conservation Voters. “With unlimited spending in the electoral arena, misinformation campaigns by Big Oil and other special interests will be amplified and more lethal, potentially drowning out the voices of the majority of Americans who support investing in clean American energy and reducing harmful carbon pollution.” Bob Edgar, President of Common Cause, made this comment: "The Roberts Court today made a bad situation worse. This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy."

For additional information see: New York Times , AP , Wall Street Journal , Forbes , President Obama's Statement on Supreme Court Ruling

IPCC: Himalayan Glaciers Will Take Centuries To Melt, Not Decades

On January 20, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed “regret” for publishing an unsupported estimate of the speed at which Himalayan glaciers were melting. In its 2007 report, the IPCC estimated that the glaciers in the Himalayas could disappear by 2035, a figure derived from a magazine interview with a glacier scientist who recently denied using that number. "There's a failure to review this data adequately by qualified experts," said J. Graham Cogley, professor of geography at Trent University in Ontario, who was one of the first people to track down some of the apparent errors. Murari Lal, chairman of the Climate, Energy, and Sustainable Development Analysis Centre think tank, and one of four lead authors on the Asian section of the IPCC's report, said the IPCC rules allowing peer-reviewed, but still unpublished, papers to be included in its assessment could have contributed to the mistakes that were made.

For additional information see: New York Times , Guardian , Wall Street Journal , Bloomberg

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

On January 21, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) released new surface temperature figures showing that the decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record and that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. “There’s always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year’s ranking, but usually that misses the point,” said Dr. James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). When temperatures are averaged over 5 or 10 years to minimize variability due to changes in ocean heating and cooling cycles, “we find global warming is continuing unabated,” Hansen said. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 1.4°F (0.8°C) since 1880. “That’s the important number to keep in mind,” said Dr. Gavin Schmidt, another GISS climatologist. “In contrast, the difference between, say, the second and sixth warmest years is trivial since the known uncertainty, or noise, in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years."

For additional information see: NASA , AFP , New York Times , Telegraph

Despite Issues, California Remains 'Fully Committed' to National Emissions Rules

On January 20, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) clarified reports that it was considering pulling out of a national plan to set fuel economy standards, saying it was “fully committed” to a national plan for 35.5 miles per gallon (mpg) standard by 2016. "There are still difficult technical issues to be resolved, as is to be expected in developing any pioneering rule, but we are confident that they will be worked out successfully," CARB Board Chairman Mary Nichols said. In May 2009, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency announced proposed rulemaking that would set fuel efficiency standards and tailpipe emissions limits from the 2012 model year through the 2016 model year. California has received a waiver under the Clean Air Act to impose its own tailpipe emission limits, but has pledged not to impose limits if a successful final agreement is imposed by March 31. The Detroit Free Press reported on January 19 that CARB was threatening to pull out of the proposed plan due to technical concerns it raised in a November letter filed with federal regulators. CARB said its concerns have not changed, but the "board is fully committed to the agreement to establish a national vehicle greenhouse gas standard announced last May by President Obama in the Rose Garden.”

For additional information see: Detroit Free Press , Reuters , Detroit News

Obama's Grades on Climate Range from B+ to C-

On January 19, two environmental groups announced the grades they have awarded to President Obama for his handling of climate and energy issues in 2009. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) gave the President a B+ for his handling of climate and energy issues but said he could do more to forge a global agreement to curb climate change. LCV Director Gene Karpinski said, "In his first year in office, the President has turned words into action and achieved real results that are beginning to pave the way toward a clean energy economy that creates jobs, increases our energy independence and protects the planet."

In related news, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) also released a report card which gave President Obama grades ranging from B+ to C- on the issues of public lands, endangered species, oceans, climate and energy. The lowest grade came in the area of climate change, where the CBD faults President Obama for his “failure to push Congress to enact legislation that has scientifically defensible emissions targets and that retains the Clean Air Act’s safety net for reducing greenhouse gases,” and the limited outcome of Copenhagen. "The Obama administration has begun to steer the ship in the right direction," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director for the CBD. "But it has failed to provide the strong leadership to get us on the course we need to be following to address the pressing problems of species extinction and global warming."

For additional information see: Reuters , Environment News Service , LCV Press Release , CBD Press Release

Over 80 U.S. Companies Call on Obama and Congress to Enact Comprehensive Climate Legislation

On January 21, more than 80 CEOs from leading U.S. businesses, including Exelon, Virgin America, NRG Energy, eBay and PG&E, sent a letter to President Obama and members of Congress calling on them to enact comprehensive climate and energy legislation that will create jobs and enhance U.S. competitiveness. The letter stated that the United States is "falling behind" in the global clean energy race and called for forceful leadership to achieve legislation that will unleash innovation, drive economic growth, boost energy independence and decrease our carbon emissions. "American businesses recognize this challenge and have already begun to respond and innovate. However, today's uncertainty surrounding energy and climate regulation is hindering the large-scale actions that American businesses are poised to make," the letter stated. It continued, "We need strong policies and clear market signals that support the transition to a low-carbon economy and reward companies that innovate. It is time for the Administration and Congress to embrace this policy as the promising economic opportunity that will empower American workers to compete and American entrepreneurship to lead the way."

For additional information see: We Can Lead Press Release , Denver Business Journal

France Outlines Its New Carbon Tax

On January 20, the French government revealed the elements of its new carbon tax proposal, this coming after the country's highest court struck down a first version of the bill December 29, calling it "anti-constitutional." The original bill was ruled to have too many exemptions to the proposed tax. The main adaptation of the new bill, which maintains the tax amount of 17 euros per metric ton, is likely to be the extension of the tax on highly polluting sites, such as power stations, oil refineries and cement works. These plants, which were exempted in the original version of the bill because they were already subject to a European Union quota system to be put in place in 2013, will be taxed through a system of bonuses and penalties the government has not yet detailed. French Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo said he will start consulting next month with companies, trade unions and environmental non-governmental organizations to come up with an official piece of draft legislation, which would then be sent to Parliament for approval by spring. Luc Chatel, a spokesman for Borloo, said that the French government will also keep pushing for a EU-wide carbon tax "intended to internalize in the price of imported goods their cost in terms of carbon, something that would establish a fair competitive framework for companies established in Europe."

For additional information see: Reuters , Wall Street Journal , AFP

EU to Stick with Lower Climate Offer to UN

On January 22, the European Union (EU) decided to commit to unilaterally cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels over the next decade, a draft letter showed. Ahead of the United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen in December, the EU offered to deepen those cuts to 30 percent, an offer contingent upon "comparable effort" from other nations. After the failure to form a comprehensive international agreement, however, the EU has returned to its original position of 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels. The EU's reluctance to set tougher targets for itself came despite the admission by a senior official that the measures envisaged by the Copenhagen accord do not correspond with those that most scientists deem necessary to avert a potentially catastrophic rise in global temperatures. Olli Rehn, a member of the European Commission, said this week that the agreement "falls badly short of our goal" to ensure that temperatures do not climb above 2°C of pre-industrial levels. Rehn added, "The accord is better than no outcome at all, which would have been the worst case scenario." Many EU countries and industries expressed wariness of increasing cuts to 30 percent alone as the cost of cutting emissions might put factories at a disadvantage to rivals in less regulated countries. Environmentalists believe, however, that the EU should strive for a 30 percent reduction goal as a minimum, regardless of whether other big players in the global economy will emulate it. They contend that the EU’s tactic of hoping outsiders follow its agenda has not worked and that it is now time for it to lead by example. Matthias Duwe, director of Climate Action Network Europe, said that the EU, “is sitting back and waiting for others, when there should be a renewed sense of urgency."

For additional information see: Reuters , IPS , BBC

Group Suing U.S. Government to Protect Corals from Global Warming

On January 20, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) announced that it would sue the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to force a decision on whether to protect 83 coral species it says are threatened by global warming. The suit comes after the NMFS missed a deadline for an endangered species listing decision for dozens of coral species. Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney at the CBD, said the corals face a growing threat of extinction from rising ocean temperatures. "Timing is of the essence to reverse the tragic decline of these vitally important reefs," Sakashita said. "We can't afford any delays in protecting corals under the Endangered Species Act." Rising sea temperatures and increasing oceanic acidity, caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from burning fossil fuels and other land-based pollution, are putting stress on corals around the world experts say. Connie Barclay, a spokeswoman for the NFMS, said that agency scientists are working to put 83 coral species on the endangered species list and hope to publish their findings in the next two weeks.

For additional information see: AP , CBD Press Release

Study Shows First Direct Evidence of Ocean Acidification

In the January 20 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, the most extensive survey of pH levels in the Pacific Ocean will confirm what spot measurements have recently suggested, namely that the upper reaches of the sea are becoming more acidic in concert with rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere. Robert Byrne, a marine chemist at the University of South Florida and lead author of the upcoming paper, collaborated with Seattle scientists on the survey, which was 15 years in the making. It is the first time measurements have been taken across such a wide area, said co-author Richard Feely of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. "The fact that we saw this very significant change over the last 15 years is a reminder of how mankind is affecting the oceans at an ever-increasing rate," Feely said. The study’s scientists calculated that since the start of the Industrial Age the acidity of the world's oceans has increased 25 to 30 percent. Under a business as usual scenario, Feely said, ocean acidity could triple by the end of the century. Although extrapolating future rates of acidification is difficult because the ocean and atmosphere are so complex, and should thus be viewed cautiously, the authors argue that the trend of increasing acidification is clear.

For additional information see: Seattle Times , University of South Florida Press Release

Global Warming Could Lead to Fewer but More Intense Hurricanes

In the January 22 issue of Science, scientists said that the strongest Atlantic hurricanes may almost double in frequency by the end of the century as the planet warms. Tom Knutson, a co-author of the study and a climate scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, “There will be fewer storms, more of these more intense storms, and it works out to some increase in damage potential." Occurrence of the most destructive hurricanes may rise 81 percent over 80 years while the total number of storms, including weaker systems, is projected to drop by 28 percent, the report said. This more nuanced view - fewer storms, but more of the intense ones - has led some scientists to believe that they might be getting closer to understanding the effect of global warming on storm activity. “In my opinion, it does bring us closer to closure,” said Kerry Emanuel, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is among the leaders in hurricane research. “I am not sure we are there yet, though, as we know that in some respects the climate models are behaving differently from nature, so we need to keep working on those.” Storms rated Category 4 or 5 on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale, with winds of at least 131 miles (210 kilometers) an hour, are those that are projected to increase in frequency.

For additional information see: Nature , Telegraph , Houston Chronicle , Bloomberg

Micronesia Challenges Czech Utility on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

On January 18, environmental advocates described the Federated States of Micronesia’s challenge of plans by the Czech Republic to refit a coal-fired power station as the first of its kind. The case focused on efforts by a Czech utility, the CEZ Group, to prolong the life of the power plant. Micronesia maintained that doing so would result in continued emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that contribute to global warming, which it said threaten its existence. “Climate change is real and it is happening on our shores,” Andrew Yatilman, the director of Micronesia’s office of environment and emergency management, said. “It’s a matter of survival for us.” The Czech authorities were scheduled to take Micronesia’s complaint into account this week in deciding whether the plant was environmentally acceptable, said Jan Rovensky, an energy and climate campaigner with Greenpeace Czech Republic. Eva Novakova, a press officer for the CEZ Group, said that the refit and a closure of one unit would cut emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the plant by 31 percent. In requesting a Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment, a process originally designed to settle disputes between neighboring countries, Micronesia's challenge has the potential to set a new precedent as countries more vulnerable to climate change begin to seek redress in international forums.

For additional information see: UPI , New York Times

Pollster Frank Luntz: Bipartisan Public Support for National Climate Legislation

On January 21, pollster Frank Luntz announced new research that shows most Americans support legislation that boosts national security and energy independence, promotes innovation and new technology, creates jobs, and reduces pollution under a cap on carbon emissions. Fifty-seven percent of those polled agreed with the following statement: “It doesn't matter if there is or isn't climate change. It is still in America's best interest to develop new sources of energy that are clean, reliable, efficient and safe.” In addition, the majority of those polled believe climate change is occurring and is caused at least in part by humans, with 18 percent stating a belief that climate change is not real. "Frank's research proves that no matter who Americans voted for in 2008, in 2010 they want to see Congress act on climate legislation," said Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund

Luntz’s firm, the Word Doctors, conducted the national poll of 1,007 adults on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). "Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think," Luntz said.  "A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening.  This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike.  And even those that don't, still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment.”

For additional information see: Reuters , EDF Press Release