GWPF | 1 April 2015
Putin’s Clever Climate Bluff: Russia Offers Forests As Carbon Sinks
The Obama administration’s plan for U.N. climate change talks encountered swift opposition after its release Tuesday, with Republican leaders warning other countries to “proceed with caution” in negotiations with Washington because any deal could be later undone. Republican critics say the administration lacks the political and legal backing to commit the United States to an international agreement. Some observers said that resistance to the administration’s climate policies leaves foreign governments questioning whether Obama’s commitments can last. –Valerie Volcovici, Reuters, 1 April 2015
1) US Republicans Warn World That Obama’s UN Climate Pledge Could Be Undone – Reuters, 1 April 2015
2) Obama’s Climate Pledge Could Be Undone By Legal & Legislative Challenges – Bloomberg, 1 April 2015
3) Putin’s Clever Climate Bluff: Russia Offers Forests As Carbon Sinks – Times of India, 31 March 2015
4) UN Climate Fund Agrees To Bankroll Coal-Fired Power Plants – Telesur TV News, 29 March 2015
5) Japan’s Climate Pledge: Use Climate Cash For Coal Plants
AAP, 30 March 2015
6) Andrew Montford: The Guardian Backs Big Oil – Bishop Hill, 31 March 2015
President Barack Obama’s pledge to the United Nations Tuesday to sharply cut greenhouse-gas emissions relies on being able to rebuff legal and legislative challenges — and the continuing availability of cheap natural gas. It’s no slam dunk. The power plant rule faces its first court test next month, and the final rule, set to come out within the next six months, is likely to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Monday. –Mark Drajem, Bloomberg, 1 April 2015
Russia said Tuesday it could cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by up to 30 per cent compared to 1990 levels, subject to conditions. Russia announced that “limiting anthropogenic greenhouse gases in Russia to 70-75% of 1990 levels by the year 2030 might be a long-term indicator.” But, it said, this was “subject to the maximum possible account” of including forests — deemed absorbers of carbon gases — in the reduction. Green groups argue that forests are a false way to meet an emissions target, and that “sinks” are usually invoked to avoid the cost of switching to cleaner energy resources or reducing real carbon pollution. —Times of India, 31 March 2015
The U.N. fund for confronting climate change is set to pay for the most polluting form of energy generation. In an antagonistic meeting in South Korea last week, the Green Climate Fund allocated money meant for anti-global warming purposes to coal-fired power plants — the greatest polluter of all forms of energy generation. —Telesur TV News, 29 March 2015
Despite mounting protests, Japan continues to finance the building of coal-fired power plants with money earmarked for fighting climate change, with two new projects underway in India and Bangladesh, The Associated Press has found. Tokyo argues that the projects are climate-friendly because the plants use technology that burns coal more efficiently, reducing their carbon emissions compared to older coal plants. Also, Japanese officials stress that developing countries need coal power to grow their economies and expand access to electricity. “Japan is of the view that the promotion of high-efficiency coal-fired power plants is one of the realistic, pragmatic and effective approaches to cope with the issue of climate change,” said Takako Ito, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry. —AAP, 30 March 2015
We have about £600 million invested at the moment, and I don’t think our fund managers could say exactly how much was invested in fossil fuel. But it is there, we haven’t said that it shouldn’t be, so we have got money invested. And so, if we’re going to be calling on people to divest, people are bound to ask “Well, is that what the Guardian’s going to do?” –Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor, 27 March 2015
1) US Republicans Warn World That Obama’s UN Climate Pledge Could Be Undone
Reuters, 1 April 2015
Valerie Volcovici
The Obama administration’s plan for U.N. climate change talks encountered swift opposition after its release Tuesday, with Republican leaders warning other countries to “proceed with caution” in negotiations with Washington because any deal could be later undone.
The White House is seeking to enshrine its pledge in a global climate agreement to be negotiated Nov. 30 to Dec. 11 in Paris. It calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by close to 28 percent from 2005 levels within a decade, using a host of existing laws and executive actions targeting power plants, vehicles, oil and gas production and buildings.
But Republican critics say the administration lacks the political and legal backing to commit the United States to an international agreement.
“Considering that two-thirds of the U.S. federal government hasn’t even signed off on the Clean Power Plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it, our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said.
U.S. officials stressed that their Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, U.N. lingo for its official submission, stands on sound legal footing, with the measures drawing authority from legislation such as the Clean Air Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act.
Todd Stern, the lead U.S. climate change negotiator, said he frequently tells foreign counterparts that “undoing the kind of regulation we are putting in place is very tough to do.”
But elements of the administration’s climate policy already face legal challenges. On April 16, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. will hear arguments from 13 states opposed to as-yet-unfinalized regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that target emissions in existing power plants.
And McConnell’s warnings echoed the tone of a March 9 “open letter” from 47 Republican senators to Iran, in which they warned a Republican president would not be bound to honor a nuclear agreement struck by Democrat Obama without congressional approval, calling it a “mere executive agreement.”
Some observers said that resistance to the administration’s climate policies leaves foreign governments questioning whether Obama’s commitments can last.
2) Obama’s Climate Pledge Could Be Undone By Legal & Legislative Challenges
Bloomberg, 1 April 2015
Mark Drajem
President Barack Obama’s pledge to the United Nations Tuesday to sharply cut greenhouse-gas emissions relies on being able to rebuff legal and legislative challenges — and the continuing availability of cheap natural gas.
It’s no slam dunk. A coal-industry suit over the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to force reductions in emissions from power plants is set for argument in federal court next month, and Republican leaders are prodding states to refuse to implement the rules in any case. More court challenges are likely after the rule gets finalized this year. […]
The power plant rule faces its first court test next month, and the final rule, set to come out within the next six months, is likely to be litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Monday. Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe, who was hired by coal producer Peabody Energy Corp., argues the rule violates the Constitution and should be tossed out by the courts.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from coal-rich Kentucky, has urged states not to implement plans to meet the EPA goals, which could complicate the so-called Clean Power Plan.
“Even if the job-killing and likely illegal Clean Power Plan were fully implemented, the United States could not meet the targets laid out in this proposed new plan,” McConnell said Tuesday in a statement. “Our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal.”
3) Putin’s Clever Climate Bluff: Russia Offers Forests As Carbon Sinks
Times of India, 31 March 2015
Russia, moving ahead of a deadline for submitting pledges to tackle climate change, said Tuesday it could cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by up to 30 pe rcent compared to 1990 levels, subject to conditions. Its “final decision” on the commitment will depend on the outcome of the negotiating process and on the commitments by “major emitters” of greenhouse gases.
In a roster of commitments on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) website, Russia announced that “limiting anthropogenic [man-made] greenhouse gases in Russia to 70-75% of 1990 levels by the year 2030 might be a long-term indicator.”
But, it said, this was “subject to the maximum possible account” of including forests — deemed absorbers of carbon gases — in the reduction.
And, it cautioned, Russia’s “final decision” on the commitment will depend on the outcome of the negotiating process and on the commitments by “major emitters” of greenhouse gases.
March 31 was a rough deadline for the 195 countries in the UNFCCC process to submit so-called “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs).These are the heart of an intended pact to tackle greenhouse gases that would be sealed in Paris in December and take effect from 2020.
Russia is the fifth biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, after China, the United States, the European Union (EU) and India, according to the US thinktank the World Resources Institute (WRI).The reference to forests is a highly contentious part of the climate negotiation process.
Trees are so-called “carbon sinks,” meaning that they absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere under the natural process of photosynthesis.As a result, the argument is that forests should be taken into account, and set against national commitments to reduce carbon emissions.
Green groups argue that forests are a false way to meet an emissions target, and that “sinks” are usually invoked to avoid the cost of switching to cleaner energy resources or reducing real carbon pollution.
4) UN Climate Fund Agrees To Bankroll Coal-Fired Power Plants
Telesur TV News, 29 March 2015
The U.N. fund for confronting climate change is set to pay for the most polluting form of energy generation.
New rules agreed by a United Nations committee to help fight climate change are “like a torture convention that doesn’t forbid torture,” a leading environmental group told the Guardian.
In an antagonistic meeting in South Korea last week, the Green Climate Fund allocated money meant for anti-global warming purposes to coal-fired power plants — the greatest polluter of all forms of energy generation.
The fund, according to its website, promotes “the paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways by providing support to developing countries to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”
However, industrialized nations have only contributed 1 percent of the US$10.2bn agreed on at the U.N. climate change conference in Lima, Peru, last December.
Countries have until the end of April to fulfill the commitment. This is not the first time that developed countries have shirked on their responsibilities when in respect to climate change agreements
5) Japan’s Climate Pledge: Use Climate Cash For Coal Plants
AAP, 30 March 2015
Despite mounting protests, Japan continues to finance the building of coal-fired power plants with money earmarked for fighting climate change, with two new projects underway in India and Bangladesh, The Associated Press has found.
The AP reported in December that Japan had counted $US1 billion ($A1.27 billion) in loans for coal plants in Indonesia as climate finance, angering critics who say such financing should be going to clean energy like solar and wind power.
Japanese officials now say they are also counting $US630 million in loans for coal plants in Kudgi, India, and Matarbari, Bangladesh, as climate finance. The Kudgi project has been marred by violent clashes between police and local farmers who fear the plant will pollute the environment.
Tokyo argues that the projects are climate-friendly because the plants use technology that burns coal more efficiently, reducing their carbon emissions compared to older coal plants. Also, Japanese officials stress that developing countries need coal power to grow their economies and expand access to electricity.
“Japan is of the view that the promotion of high-efficiency coal-fired power plants is one of the realistic, pragmatic and effective approaches to cope with the issue of climate change,” said Takako Ito, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry.
Climate finance is money promised by rich countries in UN climate talks to help poor countries limit their carbon emissions. Japan announced at a UN climate conference in Peru in December that it had provided $US16 billion in climate finance since 2013. Yet the UN has no rules defining climate finance, meaning governments decide for themselves what projects to include in their accounting.
6) Andrew Montford: The Guardian Backs Big Oil
Bishop Hill, 31 March 2015
Barry Woods points us to the transcript of a most amusing Guardian podcast on the subject of that organ’s latest bit of posturing. It seems that the divestment campaign has yet to actually have any impact on the Guardian’s own investments:
Amanda Michel: You know, there are big questions about asking people to do something that we ourselves have not done.
Aleks Krotoski: What Amanda is talking about is sorting out the Guardian’s own pots of money, their investments.
Amanda Michel: It will seem like hypocrisy.
Alan Rusbridger: We have about £600 million invested at the moment, and I don’t think our fund managers could say exactly how much was invested in fossil fuel. But it is there, we haven’t said that it shouldn’t be, so we have got money invested. And so, if we’re going to be calling on people to divest, people are bound to ask “Well, is that what the Guardian’s going to do?”
I have to say I agree with Ms Michel: it will indeed seem like hypocrisy for the Guardian to keep backing big oil in this way.
