Posts Tagged ‘greenhouse gas emissions’

17 years later, US sets first-ever national greenhouse gas emissions standards

April 2nd, 2010

By Kevin Tuerff

My personal history with vehicle emissions standards and air quality goes back 17 years. That’s how long it’s taken to move the auto industry significantly forward to reduce pollution from gas-powered engines. More on this later.


Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

With the Easter holiday weekend, you may have missed this big news from the Obama administration. From the US Environmental Protection Agency announcement: “Responding to one of the first major directives of the Obama Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today jointly established historic new federal rules that set the first-ever national greenhouse gas emissions standards and will significantly increase the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States. The rules could potentially save the average buyer of a 2016 model year car $3,000 over the life of the vehicle and, nationally, will conserve about 1.8 billion barrels of oil and reduce nearly a billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the lives of the vehicles covered.”

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “leaner car standards will mean 950,000,000 tons of carbon pollution cut from our skies. They will mean as much as $3,000 dollars in savings for drivers of 2016 model clean cars. And they will mean $2.3 billion dollars that can stay at home in our economy rather than buying oil from overseas.

Why is this big news? Cars, SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks are responsible for almost 60 percent of all U.S. transportation-related greenhouse gas GHG emissions. And it’s the first set of national emissions standards to address the climate issue. All done without an act of Congress.

Back in 1993, I worked for state Senator Rodney Ellis (& now Rep. Strama) on Texas legislation that would do what the President & EPA finally did today: adopt the California Air Resources Board’s vehicle emission standards that reduce air pollution. California was already requiring automakers to build a small percentage of their vehicles with new fuels and technologies, including electric catalytic converters that reduce engine emissions.  The industry complied in California, but vehemently fought expansion of cleaner cars legislation to other states, including Texas. You see, if the two largest states in the US both had these requirements, it would have only made sense to make vehicles with the same technology for the entire country.

I personally witnessed the Texas auto and oil lobbyists kill the bill.  We tried to rally environmental groups, hold news conferences and hold hearings to pass the Texas Low Emissions Vehicles Act. But the Texas Automobile Dealers Association lobbyist cried, “It’s impossible to mandate these new standards, Detroit doesn’t have the technology.” (Did I mention that I’ve driven an ultra low-emission vehicle (ULEV) from Honda for the last eight years?) and “It will force the price of cars to increase for consumers by at least $3,000.” As Gov. Ann Richards used to say, “That’s Hawgwarsh.” The actual cost of the new technology was said to be around an extra $400. Who wouldn’t pay that much extra on top of their $20-40,000 sticker price if it meant cleaner air? The new rules announced this week by DOT and EPA are estimated to increase the price of new cars by $1,000. If we had only acted in 1993, auto dealers!

35mpg-nbc

Thirty-five is the new magic number. That’s the number of miles per gallon that new cars should be running on when they hit the lot in 2016. Some of today’s vehicles are still on the roads getting less than 15 mpg. Those drivers should take that 35 number to the bank.


1 comment »

Posted in Green Detectives

Tags:

Copenhagen Accord Barely Alive As Deadline Passes

January 31st, 2010
Valerie Davis and Kevin Tuerff attended COP 15 as delegates.

Valerie Davis and Kevin Tuerff attended COP 15 as delegates.

U.N. deadline passes with mixed results; Mexico prepares to try again for global climate treaty

Fifty-five of the 193 countries that participated in the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen have submitted their emission-reduction plans by the January 31 deadline. Without India and China submitting plans, the Copenhagen Accord is on “life support” as a tool for reducing global greenhouse gases. However, the United States and most of the biggest polluting nations submitted their commitments to the United Nations.

“It’s a soft deadline,” explained Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change. “If countries follow up the outcomes of Copenhagen calmly, with eyes firmly on the advantage of collective action, they have every chance of completing the job,” he said.

President Barack Obama worked with other world leaders to negotiate the outcome of COP 15 in Copenhagen last month. We participated in the event as business delegates, and blogged at http://www.GreenDetectives.net.

Feb 4 UPDATE: Todd Stern, the US Special Envoy for Climate Change, issued a statement about the results: “We are pleased to be among 55 countries – including all of the world’s major economies — that have submitted pledges to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under the Copenhagen Accord. These countries represent nearly 80% of global emissions. In supporting the Accord, we are taking an important step in the global effort to combat climate change.”

“In addition to the countries that have submitted targets or actions, a number of others have conveyed their support for the Accord. We urge all countries to join this broad coalition by promptly conveying their support for the Accord to the UNFCCC Secretariat.”

MARCH 9 UPDATE: China and India asked the UN to officially be listed as part of the accord.

“The Copenhagen Accord includes important advances on funding, technology, forestry, adaptation and transparency. The United States is committed to working with our partners around the world to make the Accord operational and to continue the effort to build a strong, science-based, global regime to combat the profound threat of climate change.” (From US State Department)

This could be interpreted to mean: sign up for the accord, or no financial aid from the U.S.

Behind the U.N. and U.S. spin of the final outcome for the accord is a valley of discontent between developed and developing countries. Some believe the differences are so great that the largest countries should try to fix the climate problem on their own. Others want to give UNFCCC negotiations a chance, with up to five more negotiating sessions this year, concluding in late November at COP 16 in Cancún, Mexico.

Copenhagen Accord Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals by 2020
According to news reports, these large countries reported these emission-reduction commitments from 2005 levels. Check here or come back to GreenDetectives.net for updates.

Country     % Reduction  % of Global Pollution
Australia                        5                      1.3
Brazil                            20                     6.6
Canada                         17                      2
European Union            20**                 15
Indonesia                     26                     4.7
Japan                            25**                 4
United States              17                     18
** by 1990 levels

China, the world’s largest emitter (generating 22 percent of global emissions), said publicly it would reduce its carbon intensity by at least 40 percent (a different measure) while allowing overall emissions to increase. India (6 percent) pledged a 20-25 percent reduction of 2005 emissions.

U.S. negotiators in Copenhagen were trying to encourage countries to sign the accord, dangling a $10 billion carrot of financial aid from the United States and others. The money would be used for climate adaptation and mitigation.

“The proof of their commitment, their credentials will be demonstrated if the $10 billion flows as promised,” said, Jairam Ramesh, India’s Environment Minister. “If it doesn’t, we would believe that developed countries aren’t serious about climate change.”

Picture 3Mexico willing to lead

COP 16 moved to Cancún

Mexican president Felipe Calderón sees a problem with the dispute between poor countries and rich countries. Calling it a false dilemma, he says, “It’s as if we were in an airplane that has serious problems, and there is a terrible dispute between the passengers of first class and tourist class.”

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, Calderón said, “My perception is lack of consensus is related to economic problems in each nation. There are huge economic costs associated with the tasks to cope with climate change.”

Noting the climate financing proposals from developed countries are probably not enough, he urges good-faith negotiations to move forward. He appears ready to try to be the bridge builder between rich and poor. For Calderón, COP 16 is both a logistical and political challenge. However, a successful outcome could bring dramatic changes to improve Mexico’s global image.

It’s interesting to note the Mexican government has moved the climate conference from the polluted Mexico City, to the beautiful resort area of Cancún. The beaches and crashing waves should provide a better backdrop for the conference than Denmark’s frigid temperatures and snow. Face it: global warming conferences should only be held in regions where it’s warm in December. And the Yucatan has faced more than its share of disasters due in part to rising ocean temperatures, including hurricanes and dying coral reefs offshore.

Perhaps Americans will pay more attention because of their proximity to and familiarity with Cancún, but I doubt it. No worries, the Green Detectives will be there. And we’ll continue following the climate issue here throughout 2010. –Kevin Tuerff

3 comments »

Posted in COP 16, Copenhagen agreement, UNFCCC

Tags:

What’s In An “Accord”?

December 18th, 2009

With minutes and not hours or days left for COP15 (which was supposed to conclude today), a “Copenhagen Accord” has surfaced. A major feature is that it removes the deadline of 2010 for a legally binding agreement. However, according to a draft published by The Washington Post, the Copenhagen Accord would call for a reassessment by 2016 for “strengthening the long term goal to limit the increase of long term global average temperature to 1.5 degrees.” Scientist have called to prevent a 2 Celcius rise in temperatures.

But why an “Accord” versus a Protocol? Visit our Green Detectives timeline and UNFCCC and you’ll see when the rules for the Kyoto Protocol were adopted in 2001, they became known as the “Marrakesh Accords.” Backing up still further, the UNFCCC was established in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to encourage the world to reduce GHGs. And the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997, committing ratifying countries to 5.2% GHG emissions reductions over 1990 levels. The US signed the Kyoto Protocol but the Senate never ratified it. Now, fast forward to Copenhagen. US signs an accord? And what will be the specifics of what is expected to be a very slim agreement document? The US House passed climate legislation in June this year, but what will the Senate do with it’s climate bill? Deja-vu?

2 comments »

Posted in COP 15

Tags:

Obama at COP15: No transparency “doesn’t make sense”

December 18th, 2009

obamaOverview

At roughly 5:40 a.m. CST time, President Obama told climate negotiators at the Plenary Session, “I don’t know how you have an international agreement without sharing information. That doesn’t make sense.” Obama followed Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s address, and both the US and China seemed to say the same thing — we’ve got our act together, why doesn’t everybody else? Obama talked about America’s investment in a green economy, our renewed leadership in climate negotiations, and our collective $100 billion investment with other major economies in climate finance for poor countries. He said our move to a clean energy economy helps national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, that negotiators need to move from posturing to action, and that no country will get everything it wants: “There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.” It was roughly a 10 minute speech without once mentioning the word Kyoto — a big contingency point between rich and poor countries these past two weeks in Copenhagen. “We’re ready to get this done today but there has to be movement on all sides,” he said.

 

Transcript: Kevin just received full remarks from the State Department and they are pasted below:

Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery
Copenhagen Summit
Copenhagen, Denmark
December 18, 2009

Good morning. It’s an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.

So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.

I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.

As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America’s national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.

So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.

After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if – it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.

Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula – one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord – one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.

We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor – one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.

Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it’s time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past – with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.

3 comments »

Posted in COP 15, Climate finance, Copenhagen agreement

Tags:

Ag Sec Vilsack One-Ups Energy Sec Chu

December 16th, 2009

treesTwo days after Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced at climate talks $350 million over the next five years to promote clean energy technologies in developing countries, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced today from Copenhagen $1 billion over the next three years to reduce carbon emissions caused by deforestation.

“Protecting the wold’s forests is not a luxury — it is a necessity,” said Vilsack. According to the UN, 20 percent of the world’s carbon emissions are caused by deforestation. The U.S. joins Australia, France, Japan, Norway and the UK to dedicate a total of $3.5 billion in initial public finance for 2010-1012 “toward slowing, halting and eventually reversing deforestation in developing countries.” Learn what causes deforestation to emit so much C02 and how we all affect it in our daily lives. Watch the Green Detectives Decoder video on REDD – Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. (Photo: deforestation display inside Bella Center)

1 comment »

Posted in COP 15, Deforestation (REDD), Green Detectives

Tags:

A Few Gigatons Short of a Deal

December 8th, 2009

According to a report released Sunday by the U.N., pledges from the world’s nations for carbon cuts currently equate to 46 billion tons emitted worldwide by 2020.

Scientists say to keep the Earth’s temperatures from rising no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F), the world’s nations should collectively emit no more than 44 billion tons of carbon dioxide by 2020.

Said U.N. Environment Program Director Achim Steiner to the Associated Press: “We are within a few gigatons of having a deal. The gap has narrowed significantly.”

That’s good news I guess, but what the heck is a gigaton? I had to look it up, and a gigaton is 1 billion tons. OK. But still, what’s a gigaton of carbon dioxide? According to the U.S. Department of Energy, in order for coal plants to replace 1 “Gt” of C02 per year, they need to replace 1,000 conventional 500-megawatt plants with zero-emission power plants. Replacing that Gt of carbon can also be accomplished by increasing current U.S. wind generation 150 times (14,900 percent.) Or reforest more than 40 times the equivalent of Iowa’s farmland.

So, if we’re committed to 46 billion tons today, and we need to be at 44 billion tons, I guess we’re 2 Gt short of a deal. Can the world replace all those power plants and increase wind generation like that? Yes. Do we have the political will? We may be a few Gt short there too.

7 comments »

Posted in COP 15, Copenhagen agreement

Tags:

Obama Changes Dates for Copenhagen; Is Something Big Possible?

December 6th, 2009

The world was abuzz on Nov. 25 when the White House announced President Obama would indeed attend the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen. The plan was to drop by this Wednesday on his way to accept the Nobel Peace Prize in nearby Oslo on the following day. The President was lobbied by global leaders, business and environmental advocates for months to attend and speak at COP 15. The decision to attend made sense: he’s in the neighborhood, and his presence sends a strong signal to the world that US climate change policy has morphed from nonparticipation to leadership.

Then came surprising news just two days ago that Obama was now moving the date of his Copenhagen visit to Friday, Dec. 18, the final day of the two-week negotiations. What’s up?

Earlier this year, we wrote a column, “Global Climate Negotiations Resemble High Stakes Poker Game.” The game picks back up in Copenhagen tomorrow. Historically, shuttle diplomacy at these UN conferences bogs down progress with bickering among nations about the words in a paragraph. It’s only the clock that forces tough decisions to be made. And now the big bosses will be there to make the tough calls in the end.

We learned from a recent US State Department briefing that during the pre-Copenhagen negotiation sessions, a strange alliance of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Cuba and others were working together to stonewall discussions. Unbelievably, oil producing countries want compensation for potential lost revenue due to an increase in cleaner fuel consumption. Other political developments this week came from China and India, signaling new willingness to commit to cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Today’s New York Times describes challenges that lie ahead for negotiators over the next two weeks. Is it possible world leaders are fed up with oil producing countries? Could there be a miracle in the Senate with a late vote on the Climate bill? It’s probably EPA’s long awaited ruling that greenhouse gases are indeed covered by the Clean Air Act. Or is it just a shinier photo op with global leaders?

No comments »

Posted in COP 15, Copenhagen agreement

Tags: