The European Union is again flexing its market muscle to force improvements in environmental regulation. This time, the E.U. has decided to cap emissions from aircraft--and not just European aircraft. Under the agreement starting in 2012, all airlines coming or going in European airports will have to buy pollution credits. The credits are managed under the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, the largest cap-and-trade program in the world.
The boldness of this move cannot be understated. Airline associations are fuming, as they are already dealing with rising fuel costs and sketchy profit margins. The United States has been vehemently against the measure, and has recently knocked down attempts at establishing its own emissions regulation framework.
The E.U. has said though, that it would consider waiving the credits for airlines covered under similar emissions reduction policies, to avoid double regulation. In this sense, they are encouraging countries to develop their own policies to avoid having to submit to European regulation.
This step also begins to address one of the biggest deficiencies of the Kyoto agreement. Kyoto does not cover air travel, which is one of the fastest growing sources of emissions in the world.
So again, as with chemical regulation, the E.U. is taking a leadership position on environmental issues, and using its market power to force the rest of the world into compliance. Until there are some strong, effective international regimes to manage the global commons, or some real leadership on the part of the United States, I would expect to hear more in the future about the "Europe Effect," and the U.S. had better get used to being a follower.
Cross-Posted to On Day One
(Image from Treehugger)
Our collaboration with Grist rolls on today with a discussion prompt submitted by On Day One user teiki:
A key to the massive use of fossil fuels in the U.S. is gross overconsumption. We use way more than necessary, through a combined dependence on the automobile and an infatuation with big, gas-hungry cars, trucks and SUVs., through wasted energy consumption in our homes and offices in everything from their construction to "phantom loads" and light bulbs, and through the amount of green house gas emitted by livestock supplying an overconsumption of food. We must learn to use less.David Roberts; Tony Kreindler, media director of the National Climate Campaign at the Environmental Defense Fund; and Timothy B. Hurst respond below the fold.
A New York Times article discusses the Bush Administration's intentional disregard of advice from the Environmental Protection Agency. In this case, the White House refused to open an email reporting on whether or not greenhouse gases are dangerous to the environment or health. In response, the EPA watered down the report.
The original idea was that if greenhouse gases were ruled to be a danger, they could be regulated under existing environmental laws like the Clean Air Act. This, said the chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, could result in a "train wreck" of piecemeal regulation. The EPA's report apparently did not agree with this policy, so the Administration placed its fingers squarely in its ears, tightly shut its eyes, and waited for the report to dilute itself.
This is not the first time the White House has ignored the advice of the EPA and the EPA has rolled over. A similar situation arose when the EPA decided not to let California set tougher emissions standards for vehicles. In that case, the EPA administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, overturned the unanimous decision of his staff, who wanted to allow the California regulations, and said that global, not regional policies are the best way to resolve the problem. This decision came after Johnson had closed door discussions with White House officials, and documents on what led to this decision have been shielded from oversight efforts by "executive privilege."
I've heard that sometimes if you ignore something it will go away. I guess I never realized how true that is.
James Hansen blamed humans for global warming before it was popular.
20 years ago, this NASA scientist sounded the alarm on climate change in a hearing convened by then Senator Tim Wirth, now President of the United Nations Foundation. The UN Foundation today, along with Worldwatch Institute, hosted Hansen as he talked to more than 300 people at the National Press Club about that fateful summer of '88.
The United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) just launched a new website that lets users calculate their in-flight carbon footprint. All you have to do is enter your departure and arrival cities and indicate whether you are flying business or economy. Then, ICAO will instantly tell you how much carbon that route emits on a per-passenger basis. Here is how ICAO calculated my in flight carbon footprint from my trip to Chicago last weekend:
Route: from CHICAGO, IL (MDW) to WASHINGTON, DC (DCA) ( 964 Km)
* This itinerary is served by the following aircraft:
320,734,CR2,CR9
* Each flight consumes an average of 3,854 tons of fuel
* The average number of seats per flight is 146
* The average CO2 emitted per passenger is 0.12 tons
It could have been worse. I could have flown from Washington to Jeddah, which would have emitted 0.72 tons of new CO2.
(cross posted to On Day One)Clean Technica, has raised a key concern of many in the anti-carbon camp about the value of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), created as a cost-containment mechanism of the Kyoto protocol. The CDM is basically a way that greenhouse gas emitters in developed countries can offset their own emissions by funding clean development projects in developing countries where the cost is cheaper.
The heart of the concern is that the CDM is too easily exploited, either by putting CDM investment money into projects that would have been done anyway, or by creating pollution for the sole purpose of getting paid to destroy it.
The CDM is less than perfect, there is no doubt, but at its core, it is a positive step. In order to grow in a sustainable way, developing countries need investment in infrastructure that allows for that. It is obvious that if China follows the same development path that the United States did, the result would be no less than a catastrophe. That's why rather than fight against the CDM, it would be best to put energy into improving the oversight and regulation of the projects that are receiving these investments. In fact, the CDM executive board periodically holds open calls for public comments on various parts of its activities, making it far from being an entrenched bastion of the status quo.
Today is World Environment Day, as proclaimed by the United Nations Environment Program. The theme this year: kicking the C02 habit. In celebration of the occasion, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon had this to say:
"Addiction is a terrible thing. It consumes and controls us, makes us deny important truths and blinds us to the consequences of our actions."I couldn't have said it better myself. The phrase "addicted to oil" is used frequently, but rarely does one hear of the world's addiction to the byproduct of burning fossil fuels. Think of it like an addiction to cigarettes. Oil is like a cigarette, it is bought in order to be burned. The addiction to both of these is not necessarily an addiction to the actual item, but rather the byproduct of burning it. The similarities between cigarette smoking and fossil fuel burning go even deeper. In both cases, doubts about the dangers of the act have lasted long after mounds of scientific evidence linked it to disaster. In both cases, committing the act can cause significant damage to those around you, even if they do not partake in it, and in both cases there are those who acknowledge the dangers, but still find it too difficult to quit. Unfortunately for the planet, however, there is no gum to chew, hotline to call, or patch to wear that can make the transition to a low carbon economy an easier one. Only through sheer political willpower and determination can it be done, and in the case of CO2, everybody has to quit to succeed. Of course, it's always easier to just give in to an addiction--but in the end it might kill you.
As S. 3036, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Bill easily moved forward in the Senate yesterday, one can't help but look at the criticism being heaped on the bill. On the one hand, there are environmental groups criticizing the bill because it is not strong enough and lends itself to exploitation that could thwart the bill's goals. On the other hand, there are those who criticize this bill because it is too strong and could raise energy prices at a time when they are already high. On a third hand there are those who criticize the bill because it is too complex, and that a simple carbon tax provides the same incentives to reduce emissions without the excessive bureaucracy. On yet a fourth hand, there are those who oppose the bill because they believe the very purpose of the bill to be the product of some sort of elaborate hoax. Of course, there are as many variations of these criticisms as there are degrees on a compass.
The White House, for its part, falls under the "we should do something, but not this" banner. Bush has said that he would veto the bill if it made it to his desk, which made me furrow my brow when I heard it. One the one hand, you have Bush saying that he believes something should be done to fight global warming. On the other hand, you have a bill introduced by a Republican (Warner-VA) and an Independent (Lieberman-CT) that he says he will veto.
How does it affect American credibility when, in Sweden, Secretary Rice assures the Prime Minister that the U.S. is "thoroughly committed to dealing with the problems of greenhouse gas emissions, of climate change and of their human dimension," and then Mr. Reinfeldt sees that this same administration promises to block legislation that was initiated on the subject from its own side of the aisle? My guess is "inte bra."
Despite all this criticism, however, the Senate voted 74-14 to move forward with the bill. Many believe the bill will never be passed, but, if nothing else, it signals that most in the Senate are willing to talk about the issue, and hopefully this will help lay the groundwork for a future administration that will fight global warming despite its relative convenience for the summer driving season.
So if drowning polar bears haven't convinced you that the climate is changing, perhaps the United States Government can be more persuasive. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program has issued a report on the impacts a changing climate is having on the American landscape. From the Washington Post:
The report, which runs 193 pages and synthesizes a thousand scientific papers, highlights how human-generated carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels have already translated into more frequent forest fires, reduced snowpack and increased drought, especially in the West.This is a wake up call for citizens and policymakers alike. The effects of global warming are no longer part of a distant future scenario that we can fix when we get around to it. Already, according to the report, close to 60% of the animal species in our country have experienced some effects of a changing climate. The Department of Agriculture is already issuing warnings of increased risk of certain crop failure because of changed conditions. All of this comes from the same administration that once encouraged more patience in verifying the science of global warming before taking policy action. This skeptical approach has given way to outright acknowledgment that global warming is real, it is man-made, and it is having effects on the United States. As floral blooming patterns and animal migrations change while forests burn and crops die, still some would say that we should do nothing. To them I ask: What will it take?