Go to Original

29 Jan 2010

By Krittivas Mukherjee NEW DELHI

China to "endeavour" to limit CO2 per unit of GDP * Shift from fossil fuels, plant trees

China has reiterated a goal of slowing the rise of its greenhouse gases by 2020 as part of pledges due by Jan. 31 under a "Copenhagen Accord" for combating climate change, an official letter showed on Friday. The letter, dated Jan. 28, said China "will endeavour to lower its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 compared to the 2005 level".

That would let emissions keep rising, but less quickly than economic growth. A copy of the letter was obtained by Reuters in New Delhi. China, India, South Africa and Brazil met in the Indian capital on Jan. 24 and expressed support for the Copenhagen Accord, while urging donors to keep promises of aid. China would also try to "increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15 percent by 2020 and increase forest coverage by 40 million hectares and forest stock volume by 1.3 billion cubic metres by 2020 from the 2005 levels", the letter said.

The goals were in line with targets set by Beijing last year before the Copenhagen conference. Many other nations have also reiterated existing goals for slowing global warming before a Sunday deadline for making commitments under the Copenhagen Accord, which sets an overriding goal of limiting a rise in world temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F).

Go to Original

Wednesday 27 January 2010

by: Ted Glick, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Just about one year ago today, Barack Obama was inaugurated as president. Hopes were high among progressive-minded people, including climate activists. Finally, we had a president who got it on the need for action to address the deepening climate crisis.

But here we are a year later and things look very different. The United States, including Obama, played a generally problematic role up to and at the Copenhagen climate conference, dismissing the widespread call by a big majority of the world's countries for emissions reductions consistent with climate science. The Obama administration played this role despite the bad-weather impacts and sea level rise already being seen and felt in Africa, small island nations and elsewhere.

As far as the US Congress, Obama has certainly not made it a priority so far to advance efforts to enact climate legislation in this session. It's looking very possible, even likely, that no comprehensive climate legislation will be passed in 2010.

Of course, what's needed is not just any piece of comprehensive legislation. A bad or weak bill would be worse than nothing, given that it's critical that we make the turn away from fossil fuels in the next several years. A bad bill described as an answer by politicians eager to point to a Congressional victory would be difficult to correct until it is given time to play itself out - time we don't have.

Go to Original

Tuesday 12 January 2010

by: Erika Bolstad  |  McClatchy Newspapers

Washington - Two lobbyists had a hand in writing language proposed by Sen. Lisa Murkowski that could curtail the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate major emitters of greenhouse gases.

Their involvement, first reported Monday by The Washington Post, came at the request of a staffer on the Senate Energy and Environment Committee, where the Alaska senator is the top Republican. Both of the lobbyists, Jeff Holmstead and Roger Martella Jr., represent a number of high-profile energy clients. Both had top positions in the EPA during the Bush administration.

Murkowski has led the charge against the EPA's role in regulating greenhouse gas emissions, saying she has concerns about an executive branch agency, rather than Congress, writing such regulations. Her original amendment would have been attached to a spending bill and it would have prohibited the EPA for one year from spending any money on developing regulations for greenhouse gases.

Her original amendment failed to move forward but Murkowski has continued to search for a way to keep the EPA from drawing up regulations for large emitters, such as power plants and manufacturers.

Holmstead said he and Martella took a look at the language in Murkowski's original proposal and offered some suggestions. Such work is a common practice in Washington, Holmstead said. He said that he and Martella were not acting on behalf of any particular client. They also were not the only people to look at the language, Holmstead said.

Go to Original

Sunday 10 January 2010

by: Joshua Frank, t r u t h o u t | Report

It's round one in the 2010 fight against global warming and Minnesota has landed the first punch against coal-fired electricity that crosses its borders. The state is seeking to place a tariff on carbon dioxide turned out by coal plants in North Dakota.

While there has been a lot of huffing and puffing about carbon tariffs in the past from countries that want to stick a tax on items that are produced in polluting industries, Minnesota's move is the first of its kind.

Currently, the law does not mandate a carbon tariff; it only provides the framework to create such a pricing mechanism if a tax on carbon emissions becomes necessary in the future. Minnesota is currently looking at pricing guidelines for a likely utility rate increase in 2012.

Minnesota is hoping to pressure its neighbor to the west to drop coal and embrace renewable energy sources. North Dakota has ample wind energy potential and has even been called the "Saudi Arabia of Wind."

The fee, which would function similar to a regular tax, could range from $4 to $34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions that is produced by coal-fired power plants in North Dakota. Currently, there are seven operating coal plants and six active coal plant proposals in North Dakota, according to CoalSwarm, an information portal on coal issues.