Snapler

March 11, 2010

Where Do Things Stand on International Efforts to Address Global Warming?

It is almost 3 months after the Copenhagen Accord was hammered out by 28 of the world’s key countries that represent over 80% of the world’s global warming pollution and some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (as I discussed here).  Given the state of the Accord just after Copenhagen with some calling it a failure, some outlining the foundations in the Accord for international efforts (and as my colleague discussed here), and others…well not quite sure what to make of it, where do things stand on international efforts to address global warming?



If you just picked up the paper, watched TV, listened to the radio, or read blogs you might think that things aren’t really moving as there is very little coverage of international global warming discussions (especially compared to last year when every 5 seconds some news story or analysis emerged).  But that doesn’t mean that nothing is happening on the international front.  In fact, despite the lack of regular coverage, things are moving forward – albeit tentatively, behind the scenes, and without a big splash.  Here are four things that are occurring that are worth following.



More...

March 8, 2010

Global Sisterhood

I could barely feel my toes after 8 hours of standing in line outside at the Bella Center, where the international conference on climate change was taking place last December in Copenhagen. The bitter cold had done a number on my cheeks too, but I was on a mission.

I headed to Copenhagen for an opportunity to participate in a climate hearing organized by Oxfam with Archbishop Desmond Tutu and a number of my sisters from around the world whose communities are struggling because of climate change. I was ready to tell the world the story of Biloxi, Mississippi in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The devastation. The perseverance and community spirit. The lessons of preparedness. And how women picked up the pieces.

More...

March 5, 2010

Weekly Mulch: New bills and old money

By Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger

Climate legislation is returning to the Senate's docket, and leaders on Capitol Hill are hoping that this version, a compromise bill spearheaded by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), can pass without getting caught in the morass of money and politics that has delayed action so far.

A long, long time ago...

Remember, there was a time when Congress was going to pass climate legislation before the international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen. President Barack Obama was going to show up with a bill in hand and lead the world towards a better climate future. After the House passed its climate bill in June 2009, the Senate began discussing climate change, and a first stab by Sen. Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) went nowhere. Now, Kerry has turned to less liberal colleagues to draft an alternative that would appeal to moderates and even Republicans.

Now the Massachusetts senator is promising that climate change isn't dead. A new bill is coming--more information may be in the offing as early as today, as Kate Sheppard reports at Mother Jones.

Third time's the charm

Sen. Kerry is trying a new tactic to pass climate legislation. He's waiting to release his plan until he knows the bill has the 60 supporters it needs to circumvent a filibuster. The details have not been hammered out yet, and even the Senators who've been in talks with Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman don't seem to have a clear sense of what will be in the version that will emerge.

In the House, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, released an ambitious draft of the legislation, let lobbyists and members of Congress fight over it, and passed a much-changed edition months later. Sen. Kerry tried a similar plan on his side of Capitol Hill (that was the Kerry-Boxer bill), but it did not work.

With this piece of legislature, Sens. Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are working out the compromises before they release the legislation. Both reporting and speculation about their bill say that it will abandon the cap-and-trade system passed in the House. Cap-and-trade restricts carbon emissions across the economy; a variation on that policy that the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill may favor will limit the system to a few sectors.

Will it work?

Kerry's expected bill may be a much weaker plan than any proposed so far, yet it is still not certain that the Senate will support it. The lead authors of the bill have been meeting with conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans, as Sheppard reports, but those targets have not promised support yet. Coming out of a meeting, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) told reporters: "There were some interesting things that were discussed in there and like everything else in the United States Senate, the devil is in the details."

From a distance, banner-day climate legislation still seems possible. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Foundation, and the National Resources Defense Council believe that they will see a bill this year that caps carbon. These green groups would be able to live with the incentives handed to industry groups so far, according to Campus Progress' Tristan Fowler.

"There are compromises [that can go] too far. Fortunately, I don't think we're getting near that territory at the moment," Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the Sierra Club, told Fowler.

Sickly green

Before getting too excited about stamping a green seal of approval on Congress' legislation, consider Johann Hari's testimony in The Nation about the relationships between environmental groups and the industries that they oppose.

Hari has reported on climate change issues for years, and at first, he "imagined that American green groups were on these people's side in the corridors of Capitol Hill, trying to stop the Weather of Mass Destruction. But it is now clear that many were on a different path--one that began in the 1980s, with a financial donation."

Hari argues that as environmental groups began to reach out to polluters, handing them awards for green behavior and accepting support from their deep pockets, they learned to compromise too readily and accept political excuses for delaying action on climate change. While in other realms these compromises might fly, when the stakes are as high as they are on environmental issues, that behavior turns the stomach.

"You can't stand at the edge of a rising sea and say, 'Sorry, the swing states don't want you to happen today. Come back in fifty years,'" Hari writes.

The green future

When Kerry, Lieberman and Graham do release the compromised bill, watch for a tsunami of money and influence that could pack the bill with prizes for specific industries--or derail it altogether. Just this week, the natural gas industry's lobbyists told The Hill, a D.C.-based newspaper, that they were ready to fight with the coal industry over incentives in the Senate bill. At AlterNet, Harvey Wasserman writes that the nuclear industry spent $645 million in the past decade to get back into the energy game, according to a new report from American University's Investigative Reporting Workshop. (Hint: that $645 million is working in their favor.)

In the Senate, the influence of oil companies will play an important role, according to David Roberts at Grist.

"While coal has a lot of power in the House, oil has enormous power in the Senate, particularly over the conservadems and Republicans needed to put the bill over the top," Roberts explains.

No matter what legislation passes and what incentives it contains, environmentalists need to continue putting pressure on their representatives in Congress and on national environmental groups to push back against polluting industries and work to fix the world's climate.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.



More...

March 1, 2010

Gore’s Climate Remedy Must Match Diagnosis

Al Gore's eminence in the global climate movement is on impressive display in his full-throated defense of climate science in Sunday's New York Times. His essay, "We Can't Wish Away Climate Change," is triple the paper's standard length for op-eds. Only Gore could command such a bully pulpit, and probably no one else could so powerfully restore the sense of urgency that has seeped out of climate policy over the past year.

In Gore's essay, the triple debacles of Climategate, Copenhagen and Congress fall into perspective, and the moral high ground is regained for a renewed U.S. legislative effort to place a stiff price on carbon pollution. From his stage-setting opening lines,

More...

February 26, 2010

Ecuador: Controversy Over Drilling For Petroleum in the Amazon

When Ecuador's commission arrived in Copenhagen this fall, it had an audacious environmental proposal for the "developed world": make the conservation of the Amazon as profitable as its exploitation. Ecuador's second term President, Rafael Correa, offered to keep the 900 million barrels of oil that lay deep under the country's Yasuní National Park underground if the developed world would pay 350 million dollars for 10 years, a price comparable to the expected returns for the oil's extraction. The plan offered a model solution: protecting the environment would not be an economic burden for the poorest nations alone. Biological wealth could perhaps become economically profitable. It was idealistic and to many, a long shot. However, to some surprise, it also received abundant international support. By mid-January however, Ecuadorians were left doubting Correa's environmentalism and wondering, what happened? The Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini (ITT) section of Yasuní Park, its ecosystem, and perhaps most importantly, its volunatarily isolated indigenous people, are again in danger of confronting irreversible change.

The ITT oil block lies in the Yasuní National Park in the easternmost region of Ecuador. It is known to environmentalists as one of the most biodiverse places on earth. A recent study conducted by the University of Maryland and the University of San Francisco (Quito) discovered that in a single hectare of Yasuní forest, there are some 100,000 different species of insects, 204 species of mammals, 596 species of birds and 382 species of fish. The forest is also believed to contain the greatest diversity of tree species on the planet.

More...

February 17, 2010

Black and Queer in Nazi Germany

Missing from the annals of African American history and the history of Nazi Germany are the documented stories and struggles of African Americans, straight and "queer." Valaida Snow, captured in Nazi- occupied Copenhagen and interned in a concentration camp for nearly two years, is one such story that is forgotten every Black History Month in celebrating our heroes and survivors.

Born in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Valaida Snow came from a family of musicians and was famous for playing the trumpet. Named "Little Louis" after Louis Armstrong (who called her the world's second best jazz trumpet player -- besides himself, of course) Snow played concerts throughout the U.S., Europe, and China. On a return trip to Denmark after headlining at the Apollo Theater in Harlem, Snow, the conductor of an all-women's band, was arrested for allegedly possessing drugs and sent to an Axis internment camp for alien nationals in Wester-Faengle.

More...

February 16, 2010

On Not Wasting a Crisis: How Obama Must Govern

Rahm Emanuel is famous for saying that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and then the administration wasted one. The reason for raising this is not to look back and play whack-a-mole with Rahm or the White House, but to underline a couple of points about the future.

The administration interpreted "not wasting a crisis" as attempting to do everything at the same time; and to move multiple very large initiatives simultaneously. I know how White House cultures work. Once the President and the Chief of Staff decide on this as the direction, no one is really allowed to question it, and by extension no one is allowed to question accelerating all movement in all directions. As a different kind of example, it was quite clear a while ago that Copenhagen was not going to amount to much. So why keep insisting that it would be a huge success until the moment the cliff was clearly in sight? Because the White House decided to move everything at once.

More...

Fading America Must Face China Rising on its Own Terms

LONDON -- The spats between the United States and China appear to be getting more numerous and more serious. The Chinese objected in strong terms to the U.S.'s latest arms deal with Taiwan and threatened to take sanctions against those firms involved. President Obama recently accused the Chinese of currency manipulation. At Davos, Larry Summers, the director of the White House's National Economic Council, made an oblique attack on China by referring to mercantilist policies.

The disagreement between China and the U.S. at December's Copenhagen climate summit has continued to reverberate. The Chinese government reacted strongly to Google's claims -- supported by the U.S. administration -- that cyberattacks against it had originated in China and its statement that it would no longer cooperate with government censorship of the Internet. The U.S. has been increasingly critical of China's unwillingness to agree to sanctions against Iran. And finally the Chinese government is accusing the U.S. administration of interference in its internal affairs by insisting on the meeting this week between Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama in Washington.

More...

February 15, 2010

American Push-Back Against China Is Bitter Medicine

For the past number of years, the prevailing view in foreign policy circles in Washington has been that China's economic growth of 9%, along with the recent economic recession that hit the United States, has shifted the balance of Sino-U.S. relations in China's favor. During a recent conversation I had with David Bosco, the author of Five to Rule Them All, he pointed out that while for most of the Cold War and twenty-first century, the Soviet Union -- and then Russia -- led the efforts to challenge Western authority on the international stage, China has been becoming the leading voice of opposition in the United Nations Security Council in recent years.

And ever since President Obama's inauguration, China has been especially uncooperative on a number of global issues. Kenneth Lieberthal -- director of Brookings Institution's China Center in Washington -- says such testy relations in the first year of American administrations have historic precedence as the two countries are more willing to test each other. Nonetheless, China has shown to be particularly resistant to respond positively to Obama's international charm offensive. Two of those major issues have been climate change and Iran. China sent a low level diplomat to negotiate with President Obama during the Copenhagen Conference on climate change in 2009 and unilaterally ensured the conference's minimal success by resisting enforcement mechanisms for any agreement on carbon emissions. And as the military rulers in Iran proceed with horrific human rights crimes and lack of cooperation to address concerns about their nuclear program, China has shown unwilling to cooperate on sanctions on Sepah-e Pasdaran, also known as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

More...

February 6, 2010

Governing the World Together

The most symbolic moment here at the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit, the first major global follow-up to Copenhagen, was a hug.

Rajendra Pauchauri, the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been at the center of the controversy about inadequately vetted data on the melt rate of Himalayan glaciers. Before the news broke that the IPCC had included bad data in its report, Indian Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh had engaged for months in a public dispute with Pauchauri about this issue, saying that the threat was remote, not imminent.

(The reality appears to be that so little science exists on Himalayan glaciers that no one really knows how fast the glaciers here are melting  -- a shortfall that the government of India has at last committed to addressing. Regardless, the pictures of Himalayan glaciers that Skoll Global Threats Director Larry Brilliant showed Pauchauri today demonstrated that melt they have, just as in North America, Europe, and the Andes.)

Yesterday, the UN's climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said that Pauchauri was not personally responsible for the unsubstantiated claim that global warming could melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035, and it would be "senseless" for Pauchauri to step down. And when Pauchauri joined Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other dignitaries on the dais, Ramesh gave him a very visible and very public hug -- just as Prime Minister Sigh had expressed in his remarks the Indian government's support for the IPCC (and by clear implication Pauchauri).

The solid support from the government has not prevented the Indian media from ganging up on Pauchauri, though. "Gotcha" journalism is not confined to the U.S.

But perhaps because we are in India, not the U.S., the overall conversation seems much more factually based. Prime Minister Singh hailed India's commitment to reduce the carbon dependence of its economy by 25 percent -- but also stated "in a poor nation, the interests of the present generation must be given at least as much weight as those of future generations." But other Indian experts yesterday pointed out that for the world to reconcile an expected 500 percent growth in world economic output with the need to cut carbon dioxide by 50 percent will require a staggering 1,000 percent decrease in carbon emissions per dollar or rupee.

But I continue to believe that framing climate diplomacy, as Singh did, as a problem of "burden sharing" is one of the major barriers to progress. Yes, in the long run, if we don't generate the new technology and economic strategies that make low-carbon solutions more competitive than high-carbon ones, there will be a burden to share. But in the short run we clearly know that steps such as restoring India's forests (half of which, according to Singh, are seriously degraded) are economic opportunities, not burdens.

The heads of states who appeared on the morning panel were diverse in many ways, but they all had one thing in common: They're on the front lines of disrupted climate.

Bhutanese Prime Minister Jigme Yoser Thinley described his flight to Delhi, reporting that for the first time there appeared to have been no snowfall on the Himalayas, and that the range had become gray instead of white. He earned the day's biggest applause for his call to replace GDP as a measure with his own nation's Human Happiness Index.

Anote Tong, the Prime Minister of Kiribati, made an eloquent plea for a legally binding global agreement as the outcome from the upcoming UN conference in Mexico, reminding the audience that already, when high tides hit his island nation at the full moon, communities that have been safe for hundreds of years are now being flooded.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest reminded the audience that after years of struggle Canada did get the U.S. to commit, and to act, on acid rain -- and that the Montreal Protocol had been tremendously successful in getting rid of ozone-depleting gasses.

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou took more of this slant: "How do we translate the green economy into the daily lives and politics of our peoples? This is the first time we have been challenged to govern the globe together -- and Copenhagen revealed how weak our institutions for doing so are. Let us green our economies together."

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg argued for a plan that his country has developed with Mexico, the host of the next UN conference, in which revenues from carbon taxes or cap and trade processes would be devoted to helping developing nations cope with climate change. He committed his country to becoming carbon neutral by 2030 (another round of applause) and reiterated the importance that Norway attaches to preventing tropical deforestation.

The session left me feeling, well, sobered by the steepness of the lift that is needed but also fascinated by how deeply these heads of state are wrestling with big issues -- in some ways, much bigger issues than climate change itself. Yes, the world is changing -- but time is our big challenge.

More...
Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress