Climate Change News Part.5
Green subsidies on energy bills set to rise by four times by 2030
By BEN SPENCER FOR THE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED: 03:38, 10 December 2014 | UPDATED: 10:21, 10 December 2014
By BEN SPENCER FOR THE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED: 03:38, 10 December 2014 | UPDATED: 10:21, 10 December 2014
£175 will be added to average cost due to funding of wind and solar power
Green subsidies added to families’ energy bills are to rise nearly four-fold by 2030, according to a report published today.
State funding for wind and solar power and a carbon tax on coal and gas will together add £175 to the average household bill by 2030, according to the Government’s climate advisors. That is nearly four times the £45 added to bills last year, the Committee on Climate Change said. The cost of energy to business and industry is set to double in the same period, with the price of goods and services bound to increase as a result. The report is published as politicians from 196 countries meet in Peru to try to agree a treaty to curb climate change.
Energy Secretary Ed Davey, who arrived at the UN summit in Lima yesterday, is among those trying to push for every nation to adopt strict targets on carbon emissions to restrict global warming to 2C. Britain has already adopted the most stringent climate law in the world – a legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050.
But Mr Davey wants other nations to follow suit, to adopt rules that will force them to reduce emissions. The impact of such policies is laid bare in the Committee on Climate Change report today. In order to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in line with its strict targets, the British government has agreed to plough money into solar farms, wind turbines and nuclear power – with the cost added to consumer bills. The Government also has several measures in place designed to deter companies from emitting greenhouse gases, which in turn create a ‘carbon price’ that is added to the cost of power generated by gas, coal and oil.
The committee estimates that these measures together made up £45 of the average £1,140 dual gas and electricity bill in 2013.
The green components will more than double to £100 by 2020, and soar to £175 by 2030, by which time the total average bill will be £1,305. The committee also identified £70 added to bills to support energy efficiency measures such as new boilers in low income homes and for wall and loft insulation. This element will of bills will decrease to £60 in 2020 and £40 in 2030.
The committee said that funding for green power helped cut as much emissions as taking 10 million cars off the road.
Most of the rises in household bills, which have increased almost £500 on average since 2004, are due to rising wholesale gas prices and investment in electricity and gas networks, it said. The cost to business will also rise, with the green element of energy bills set to double to 31 per cent for the commercial sector and 26 per cent for the industrial sector. Consumers will undoubtedly be effected by this, with the cost due to drive up the price of food, clothes and services.
The report said: ‘Meeting the UK’s statutory carbon targets will add to energy bills in the future, though with potential to offset much of this through energy efficiency. ‘Electricity generation will need to shift from fossil fuels to low-carbon alternatives such as renewables and nuclear, which are currently more expensive.’ Committee chairman Lord Deben added: ‘Last year, as energy consumers we all helped hundreds of thousands of poorer people to have warmer homes and contributed to real reductions in our emissions in the fight against climate change.
‘Many people saved more than that by taking simple energy saving measures that didn't interfere with their life-style.’
Dr John Constable, director of Renewable Energy Foundation, a UK charity critical of the costs of policies to consumers said: ‘Consumers should be aware that low carbon policies do not just affect their energy bills, but also increase the cost of living as industrial and commercial consumers pass on their costs in the price of goods and services.
‘The CCC’s study shows, in the fine print, that this effect will range from £210 to £360 a year 2020, depending on the cost of fossil fuels, and between £345 and £705 a year in 2030. This is very expensive.’
The Government has repeatedly insisted that imposing green levies and taxes will save consumers money in the long-run, because energy efficiency measures will mean that total bills are cheaper than they otherwise would have been.
However, ministers were forced to drastically downgrade their estimates of the potential saving last month. Previously they had estimated that the average bill would be £166 cheaper in 2020 than if no green policies had been adopted – but as the Daily Mail revealed in November, the Government’s own calculations have reduced that potential saving by 45 per cent to £92.
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: ‘Thanks to Government policies, bills are an estimated £90 lower this year and will be even lower by 2020.
‘Our policies are designed to keep the lights on, reduce polluting emissions, cut energy use at the lowest possible cost to gas and electricity customers.’
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article
Green subsidies added to families’ energy bills are to rise nearly four-fold by 2030, according to a report published today.
State funding for wind and solar power and a carbon tax on coal and gas will together add £175 to the average household bill by 2030, according to the Government’s climate advisors. That is nearly four times the £45 added to bills last year, the Committee on Climate Change said. The cost of energy to business and industry is set to double in the same period, with the price of goods and services bound to increase as a result. The report is published as politicians from 196 countries meet in Peru to try to agree a treaty to curb climate change.
Energy Secretary Ed Davey, who arrived at the UN summit in Lima yesterday, is among those trying to push for every nation to adopt strict targets on carbon emissions to restrict global warming to 2C. Britain has already adopted the most stringent climate law in the world – a legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gases by 80 per cent by 2050.
But Mr Davey wants other nations to follow suit, to adopt rules that will force them to reduce emissions. The impact of such policies is laid bare in the Committee on Climate Change report today. In order to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in line with its strict targets, the British government has agreed to plough money into solar farms, wind turbines and nuclear power – with the cost added to consumer bills. The Government also has several measures in place designed to deter companies from emitting greenhouse gases, which in turn create a ‘carbon price’ that is added to the cost of power generated by gas, coal and oil.
The committee estimates that these measures together made up £45 of the average £1,140 dual gas and electricity bill in 2013.
The green components will more than double to £100 by 2020, and soar to £175 by 2030, by which time the total average bill will be £1,305. The committee also identified £70 added to bills to support energy efficiency measures such as new boilers in low income homes and for wall and loft insulation. This element will of bills will decrease to £60 in 2020 and £40 in 2030.
The committee said that funding for green power helped cut as much emissions as taking 10 million cars off the road.
Most of the rises in household bills, which have increased almost £500 on average since 2004, are due to rising wholesale gas prices and investment in electricity and gas networks, it said. The cost to business will also rise, with the green element of energy bills set to double to 31 per cent for the commercial sector and 26 per cent for the industrial sector. Consumers will undoubtedly be effected by this, with the cost due to drive up the price of food, clothes and services.
The report said: ‘Meeting the UK’s statutory carbon targets will add to energy bills in the future, though with potential to offset much of this through energy efficiency. ‘Electricity generation will need to shift from fossil fuels to low-carbon alternatives such as renewables and nuclear, which are currently more expensive.’ Committee chairman Lord Deben added: ‘Last year, as energy consumers we all helped hundreds of thousands of poorer people to have warmer homes and contributed to real reductions in our emissions in the fight against climate change.
‘Many people saved more than that by taking simple energy saving measures that didn't interfere with their life-style.’
Dr John Constable, director of Renewable Energy Foundation, a UK charity critical of the costs of policies to consumers said: ‘Consumers should be aware that low carbon policies do not just affect their energy bills, but also increase the cost of living as industrial and commercial consumers pass on their costs in the price of goods and services.
‘The CCC’s study shows, in the fine print, that this effect will range from £210 to £360 a year 2020, depending on the cost of fossil fuels, and between £345 and £705 a year in 2030. This is very expensive.’
The Government has repeatedly insisted that imposing green levies and taxes will save consumers money in the long-run, because energy efficiency measures will mean that total bills are cheaper than they otherwise would have been.
However, ministers were forced to drastically downgrade their estimates of the potential saving last month. Previously they had estimated that the average bill would be £166 cheaper in 2020 than if no green policies had been adopted – but as the Daily Mail revealed in November, the Government’s own calculations have reduced that potential saving by 45 per cent to £92.
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: ‘Thanks to Government policies, bills are an estimated £90 lower this year and will be even lower by 2020.
‘Our policies are designed to keep the lights on, reduce polluting emissions, cut energy use at the lowest possible cost to gas and electricity customers.’
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article
Transforming the Economy to Achieve Zero Net Emissions
December 8, 2014
December 8, 2014
A year from now, climate negotiators representing countries worldwide will be in Paris finalizing an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and begin slowing the impacts of climate change. Their success will depend heavily on how leaders over the next year shape their economic policies to respond to the risks.
To stabilize warming at under 2 degrees Celsius, as the international community agreed in 2009, the world will have to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero before 2100. Economic policy will be the key to mobilizing that global response, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said in a speech today to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., that outlined steps ahead. “Paris must be where we make the rallying cry for effective management of local, national and global economies,” Kim said. “Unlike treaties of the past, the Paris agreement needs to speak as loudly of economic transformation as it does of carbon emissions targets.”
Transforming the economy
Over the next year, countries will be developing their national commitments and contributions for the Paris agreement for lowering emissions and building resilience to climate change. To decarbonize economies on a trajectory necessary to reach net zero emissions before 2100, their commitments for mitigation and adaptation efforts will have to be ambitious.
“We understand that many of our clients still face huge development challenges and many countries will reach their own peak emissions at different moments,” Kim said.
“Managing their economies to ensure that they can, for example, decarbonize their energy sectors over time, while having the energy they need for development constitutes a challenge no developed country had to face in its history. Nevertheless,
every country no matter its stage of development can strive to effectively manage their economies, to decarbonize while ending poverty and boosting shared prosperity.”
Policies
All countries should commit to put a price on carbon, the president said. Carbon pricing, whether through emissions caps and market trading mechanisms like those being developed in China, carbon taxes like British Columbia uses, or through regulations, provides the economic signal to businesses to help drive innovation and investments in clean energy technology.
Other instruments are also needed to redirect investments toward clean technology: energy efficiency and renewable energy targets; performance standards for buildings, vehicles and appliances; and a price on carbon can all provide investors and businesses with the policy certainty to invest in clean development.
Phasing out harmful fossil fuel subsidies, which are typically captured far more by the wealthy than the poor, is also overdue, the president said. That spending can be redirected to provide targeted support for the poor.
Effective management of the economy also means finding ways to invest in resilience. With science showing that
about 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming is already locked, adaptation and mainstreaming disaster risk management become essential. The World Bank Group will use its track record for financial innovation to raise a one-time injection of funds, strengthen insurance coverage for those most at risk and build resilience immediately, Kim said.
www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/12/08/transforming-economy-achieve-zero-net-emissions
To stabilize warming at under 2 degrees Celsius, as the international community agreed in 2009, the world will have to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero before 2100. Economic policy will be the key to mobilizing that global response, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said in a speech today to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., that outlined steps ahead. “Paris must be where we make the rallying cry for effective management of local, national and global economies,” Kim said. “Unlike treaties of the past, the Paris agreement needs to speak as loudly of economic transformation as it does of carbon emissions targets.”
Transforming the economy
Over the next year, countries will be developing their national commitments and contributions for the Paris agreement for lowering emissions and building resilience to climate change. To decarbonize economies on a trajectory necessary to reach net zero emissions before 2100, their commitments for mitigation and adaptation efforts will have to be ambitious.
“We understand that many of our clients still face huge development challenges and many countries will reach their own peak emissions at different moments,” Kim said.
“Managing their economies to ensure that they can, for example, decarbonize their energy sectors over time, while having the energy they need for development constitutes a challenge no developed country had to face in its history. Nevertheless,
every country no matter its stage of development can strive to effectively manage their economies, to decarbonize while ending poverty and boosting shared prosperity.”
Policies
All countries should commit to put a price on carbon, the president said. Carbon pricing, whether through emissions caps and market trading mechanisms like those being developed in China, carbon taxes like British Columbia uses, or through regulations, provides the economic signal to businesses to help drive innovation and investments in clean energy technology.
Other instruments are also needed to redirect investments toward clean technology: energy efficiency and renewable energy targets; performance standards for buildings, vehicles and appliances; and a price on carbon can all provide investors and businesses with the policy certainty to invest in clean development.
Phasing out harmful fossil fuel subsidies, which are typically captured far more by the wealthy than the poor, is also overdue, the president said. That spending can be redirected to provide targeted support for the poor.
Effective management of the economy also means finding ways to invest in resilience. With science showing that
about 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming is already locked, adaptation and mainstreaming disaster risk management become essential. The World Bank Group will use its track record for financial innovation to raise a one-time injection of funds, strengthen insurance coverage for those most at risk and build resilience immediately, Kim said.
www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/12/08/transforming-economy-achieve-zero-net-emissions
Fighting Climate Change & Poverty at the Same Time
December 4, 2014
December 4, 2014
Worldwide, close to 1 billion people live in poverty on less than $1.25 per day and more than 800 million are undernourished. Many of them are on the front lines of climate change. Extreme weather and droughts can put their food and water supplies at risk, raise prices, and destroy homes and businesses that are often built at the edges of liveable land. They have little resilience to the volatility or economic havoc climate change can bring.
More shocks can also pull those just above the poverty line under, threatening to reverse decades of progress toward eradicating extreme poverty. At the World Bank Group, we are working on ways to address both climate change and poverty at the same time. As climate negotiators gather in Lima for the latest round of UN climate talks, the impact on poverty should run throughout the discussions of risks and solutions.
“We’re only beginning to see the clear impacts of climate change. As these impacts deepen, the poor will have less means to cope. Climate change will put at risk the international community’s goal of ending poverty,” said World Bank Group Vice President and Special Envoy for Climate Change Rachel Kyte. “To protect the poor, we must invest in resilience, including social protection measures, access to insurance, natural resources restoration – everything that will help them bounce back better when shocks come,” Kyte said.
That combination of climate action and social protection is important and urgent. The recent Turn Down the Heat report warns that the world will see the effects of temperatures about 1.5°C above pre-industrial times even with concerted action to lower emissions, and much worse if emissions continue unabated, making poverty even harder to escape. Even 1.5°C of warming will bring more severe droughts and sea level rise that can flood low-lying areas and contaminate coastal crop-land.
Protecting the Poor and the Planet
Policies for mitigating and adapting to climate change must be designed to protect the poor. That is why the World Bank works with client countries to analyse the impacts of climate change risks and responses on poverty. Research under-way this year and next is finding that climate-related policies paired with social policies can both reduce poverty and modernize economies that were once carbon-intensive.
British Columbia, for example, has shown how revenue from a carbon tax can provide targeted support for the poor while also reducing business and income taxes. The Canadian province created a low-income climate action tax credit that provides quarterly payments to the poor to offset higher prices. Today, British Columbia has one of the lowest income taxes in the country, a thriving economy fuelled in part by green growth, and its emissions have fallen.
Similarly, governments can reduce harmful fossil fuel subsidies and use the savings to create targeted support for the poor who most need assistance when fuel prices rise. Studies have found that fossil fuel subsidies tend to be inefficient and regressive: The wealthiest 20 percent of households in low- and middle-income countries receive about six times more of the benefit than the poorest 20 percent. Building in new sources of support for the poor – such as energy credits, reduced public transit fares, or cash transfers – while phasing out harmful subsidies can provide the intended support more efficiently.
Building resilience also helps poor communities deal with the effects of climate change. Better land-use planning and improved infrastructure, for example, can reduce vulnerability to future climate change impacts. When Hurricane Tomas hit St. Lucia in 2010, the damage cost the island nation 43 percent of GDP. The World Bank has helped St. Lucia improve data sharing to build back better, reduce future losses, and improve its disaster preparedness and capacity to respond.
Eliminating poverty and keeping it at bay as we deal with climate change requires wider use of what we already know works: well-funded social protection programs that can easily be scaled up in the event of a disaster; the data and capacity to identify the transient poor and provide them with support; and financial inclusion that allows the poor to save and borrow so they can bounce back more quickly from shocks. Access to health care and education are also important for recovering from shocks and getting out of poverty.
Opportunities in Climate Action
At the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties in Lima, we will be talking about these and other policy options. Our research has found that with smart policies and careful urban planning, the same development work needed to accommodate a growing population today, such as clean and accessible transportation systems and energy efficient buildings, can help mitigate climate change, increase resilience to its effects, and increase opportunities for the poor through new jobs and greater access to work, health care, and education.
Climate action can create new income opportunities. Many ecosystem-based adaptation and mitigation measures require labor-intensive activities, such as reforestation and land restoration. Policies that encourage green industries also create new opportunities through retraining and diversification of economic activity and trade patterns. Inclusiveness is a critical part of green growth and building liveable cities.
Turn Down the Heat and the recent IPCC Fifth Assessment Report make clear that we must deal with climate now. Failing to do so will raise the costs and risks for everyone.
www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/12/04/fighting-climate-change-and-poverty
More shocks can also pull those just above the poverty line under, threatening to reverse decades of progress toward eradicating extreme poverty. At the World Bank Group, we are working on ways to address both climate change and poverty at the same time. As climate negotiators gather in Lima for the latest round of UN climate talks, the impact on poverty should run throughout the discussions of risks and solutions.
“We’re only beginning to see the clear impacts of climate change. As these impacts deepen, the poor will have less means to cope. Climate change will put at risk the international community’s goal of ending poverty,” said World Bank Group Vice President and Special Envoy for Climate Change Rachel Kyte. “To protect the poor, we must invest in resilience, including social protection measures, access to insurance, natural resources restoration – everything that will help them bounce back better when shocks come,” Kyte said.
That combination of climate action and social protection is important and urgent. The recent Turn Down the Heat report warns that the world will see the effects of temperatures about 1.5°C above pre-industrial times even with concerted action to lower emissions, and much worse if emissions continue unabated, making poverty even harder to escape. Even 1.5°C of warming will bring more severe droughts and sea level rise that can flood low-lying areas and contaminate coastal crop-land.
Protecting the Poor and the Planet
Policies for mitigating and adapting to climate change must be designed to protect the poor. That is why the World Bank works with client countries to analyse the impacts of climate change risks and responses on poverty. Research under-way this year and next is finding that climate-related policies paired with social policies can both reduce poverty and modernize economies that were once carbon-intensive.
British Columbia, for example, has shown how revenue from a carbon tax can provide targeted support for the poor while also reducing business and income taxes. The Canadian province created a low-income climate action tax credit that provides quarterly payments to the poor to offset higher prices. Today, British Columbia has one of the lowest income taxes in the country, a thriving economy fuelled in part by green growth, and its emissions have fallen.
Similarly, governments can reduce harmful fossil fuel subsidies and use the savings to create targeted support for the poor who most need assistance when fuel prices rise. Studies have found that fossil fuel subsidies tend to be inefficient and regressive: The wealthiest 20 percent of households in low- and middle-income countries receive about six times more of the benefit than the poorest 20 percent. Building in new sources of support for the poor – such as energy credits, reduced public transit fares, or cash transfers – while phasing out harmful subsidies can provide the intended support more efficiently.
Building resilience also helps poor communities deal with the effects of climate change. Better land-use planning and improved infrastructure, for example, can reduce vulnerability to future climate change impacts. When Hurricane Tomas hit St. Lucia in 2010, the damage cost the island nation 43 percent of GDP. The World Bank has helped St. Lucia improve data sharing to build back better, reduce future losses, and improve its disaster preparedness and capacity to respond.
Eliminating poverty and keeping it at bay as we deal with climate change requires wider use of what we already know works: well-funded social protection programs that can easily be scaled up in the event of a disaster; the data and capacity to identify the transient poor and provide them with support; and financial inclusion that allows the poor to save and borrow so they can bounce back more quickly from shocks. Access to health care and education are also important for recovering from shocks and getting out of poverty.
Opportunities in Climate Action
At the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties in Lima, we will be talking about these and other policy options. Our research has found that with smart policies and careful urban planning, the same development work needed to accommodate a growing population today, such as clean and accessible transportation systems and energy efficient buildings, can help mitigate climate change, increase resilience to its effects, and increase opportunities for the poor through new jobs and greater access to work, health care, and education.
Climate action can create new income opportunities. Many ecosystem-based adaptation and mitigation measures require labor-intensive activities, such as reforestation and land restoration. Policies that encourage green industries also create new opportunities through retraining and diversification of economic activity and trade patterns. Inclusiveness is a critical part of green growth and building liveable cities.
Turn Down the Heat and the recent IPCC Fifth Assessment Report make clear that we must deal with climate now. Failing to do so will raise the costs and risks for everyone.
www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/12/04/fighting-climate-change-and-poverty
UN climate talks begin as global temperatures break records
By Matt McGrathEnvironment correspondent, BBC News
By Matt McGrathEnvironment correspondent, BBC News
A key UN climate meeting in Peru has opened with negotiators attempting to advance a new global agreement.
One hundred and ninety-five nations have committed to finalising a new climate pact in Paris by 2015's end.
The process has been boosted by recent developments, including a joint announcement on cutting carbon by the US and China. The two weeks of discussions have started amid record-breaking global temperatures for the year to date.
According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), the global average temperature over land and ocean from January to October was the hottest since records began in 1880. Speaking at the opening ceremony in Lima, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres said that the conference had to make history. "2014 is threatening to be the hottest year in history and emissions continue to rise, we need to act urgently," she told the negotiators. "We should be able to lay the foundations for a strong agreement in Paris and raise the level of our ambitions so that gradually over the long term we are able to achieve climate neutrality - this is the only way to truly achieve sustainable development for all."
Forward momentum
Delegates will attempt to build on the this year's positive momentum that has seen a new political engagement with the process. In September, millions of people took to the streets of cities all over the world in a demonstration of popular support for a new approach. Days later, 125 world leaders attended a meeting called by the UN secretary general, where they
re-affirmed their commitments to tackle the problem through a new global agreement.
The chances of that happening were increased by November's announcement from the US and China, with the Chinese signalling that their emissions would peak around 2030. The European Union also contributed to the positive mood by agreeing climate targets for 2030. There has also been good news on climate finance. The UN's Green Climate Fund (GCF) secured over $9bn in commitments at a recent pledging conference in Berlin.
Now in Lima, the negotiating teams will try to boost these advances and maintain a momentum that will survive to Paris. But observers say there are many "formidable challenges" ahead. "Ultimately this is not a problem that can be solved by just the US, China, and the EU," said Paul Bledsoe, senior climate fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the US. "There's a whole series of countries - Canada, Australia, Japan, Russia, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia - who have not made commitments (to cut emissions) and we don't know yet how robust their commitments are."
Form and function
One key element of the puzzle that needs to be resolved in Peru is the scale of "intended nationally determined contributions" (INDC). By the end of March next year, all countries are expected to announce the level of their efforts to cut carbon as part of the Paris deal. But, as yet, there is no agreement on what should be included or excluded from these INDC statements.
"Developed countries want a narrow scope for those guidelines, but developing countries are pushing for finance and adaption in them," said Liz Gallagher from the think-tank E3G, and a long-time observer of the UN talks process.
"That seems to be a tactical move to make sure that finance and adaptation get more political attention than in the past - for me that's where the big tensions in Lima will be."
As well as the INDC discussion, there will be strong debate about what needs to be included in the final text. Parties are likely to clash over the long-term goal of any new agreement and its legal shape.
One hundred and ninety-five nations have committed to finalising a new climate pact in Paris by 2015's end.
The process has been boosted by recent developments, including a joint announcement on cutting carbon by the US and China. The two weeks of discussions have started amid record-breaking global temperatures for the year to date.
According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), the global average temperature over land and ocean from January to October was the hottest since records began in 1880. Speaking at the opening ceremony in Lima, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres said that the conference had to make history. "2014 is threatening to be the hottest year in history and emissions continue to rise, we need to act urgently," she told the negotiators. "We should be able to lay the foundations for a strong agreement in Paris and raise the level of our ambitions so that gradually over the long term we are able to achieve climate neutrality - this is the only way to truly achieve sustainable development for all."
Forward momentum
Delegates will attempt to build on the this year's positive momentum that has seen a new political engagement with the process. In September, millions of people took to the streets of cities all over the world in a demonstration of popular support for a new approach. Days later, 125 world leaders attended a meeting called by the UN secretary general, where they
re-affirmed their commitments to tackle the problem through a new global agreement.
The chances of that happening were increased by November's announcement from the US and China, with the Chinese signalling that their emissions would peak around 2030. The European Union also contributed to the positive mood by agreeing climate targets for 2030. There has also been good news on climate finance. The UN's Green Climate Fund (GCF) secured over $9bn in commitments at a recent pledging conference in Berlin.
Now in Lima, the negotiating teams will try to boost these advances and maintain a momentum that will survive to Paris. But observers say there are many "formidable challenges" ahead. "Ultimately this is not a problem that can be solved by just the US, China, and the EU," said Paul Bledsoe, senior climate fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the US. "There's a whole series of countries - Canada, Australia, Japan, Russia, South Africa, Brazil and Indonesia - who have not made commitments (to cut emissions) and we don't know yet how robust their commitments are."
Form and function
One key element of the puzzle that needs to be resolved in Peru is the scale of "intended nationally determined contributions" (INDC). By the end of March next year, all countries are expected to announce the level of their efforts to cut carbon as part of the Paris deal. But, as yet, there is no agreement on what should be included or excluded from these INDC statements.
"Developed countries want a narrow scope for those guidelines, but developing countries are pushing for finance and adaption in them," said Liz Gallagher from the think-tank E3G, and a long-time observer of the UN talks process.
"That seems to be a tactical move to make sure that finance and adaptation get more political attention than in the past - for me that's where the big tensions in Lima will be."
As well as the INDC discussion, there will be strong debate about what needs to be included in the final text. Parties are likely to clash over the long-term goal of any new agreement and its legal shape.
Will Lima climate talks pave way for a binding treaty in Paris in 2015?
John Vidal Monday 1 December 2014 00.01 GMT
John Vidal Monday 1 December 2014 00.01 GMT
Failure will condemn developing countries to unchecked climate change for another generation, and the poorest countries will be worst hit.
When, on Monday morning in Peru, 4,000 diplomats from the world’s 196 countries start their mammoth session to negotiate a new legally-binding global climate deal, they will know they are in the last chance saloon. COP 20 in Lima is the last full meeting before Paris in a year’s time, when the deal is due to be signed. If countries cannot bury most of their differences on the major issues by Friday week, then the chances of a meaningful agreement next year are slim. The result of failure would be that developing countries are condemned to unchecked climate change for another generation, and the UN process which relies on consensus to get results is fatally undermined.
On the surface, all is going to the plan of the rich countries and the big emitters. Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping of China, who between them are responsible for 42% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, have agreed a deal on climate change. The US will cut US emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, while China has pledged that emissions will fall after 2030. Europe, meanwhile, has agreed to a binding 40% cut by 2030 from 1990 levels. In addition, rich countries have pledged $9.7bn to the new UN Green Climate Fund (GCF). And it has been agreed that, by March next year, every country in the world will have established plans for reducing or constraining emissions as well as producing detailed plans on how they intend to fund climate adaptation.
In reality, the questions start here.
Will developed countries do more?
Lima is the last chance that developing countries have to push for more action from developed countries in the period 2015-2020. To the despair of the poorest countries, the rich have fought to do little more than the very minimum needed, and hopes are already fading that emissions can be held to a 2C rise, considered by science the minimum to avoid dangerous climate change. The recent US-China pact requires neither superpower to do very much, and has dashed all hopes that Paris 2015 will result in the setting of ambitious targets.
Many rich countries now want to sign up to a weak agreement, one with pledges to achieve the targets but no legally-binding requirement, though the EU says it is arguing for legally-binding mitigation targets. The Umbrella Group of countries, which includes the US, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Ukraine and Japan, are all pushing this line of minimal legal requirement.
Some of the major emerging economies like Korea, Mexico and Brazil and are now hiding behind the poorer developing countries and are not willing to take on substantial emission reduction targets. Their emissions and economies have grown rapidly, yet they are still crying poor.
Developing countries will press strongly in Lima for solid pre-2020 commitments in accordance with scientific assessments. But if the rich and the big emitters do not move, then the result will be worldwide disappointment and cynicism about the UN process. The worry for developing countries is that the less that rich countries do, the more they themselves will have to take on commitments post-2020.
Who pays?
Developing countries last month publicly welcomed the $9.7bn pledged for the GCF, but were in fact bitterly disappointed that it was so little. The money – no more than City of London financial workers are paid as bonuses each year – is to cover 2015-2020 and is so far from what is considered necessary as to be laughable.
Resentment is guaranteed at Lima. Developing countries will press strongly for assurances that the contributions to the GCF are raised to at least $15bn – the minimum necessary, they say, for making it a credible institution. More importantly, they will also want further commitments that $100bn a year will be raised after 2020. This was pledged in 2010, but so far no mechanism has been agreed on how it can be scaled up.
Developing countries will separately press for compensation for the “loss and damages” caused by climate change. The idea has been strongly resisted by the US and other rich countries, which fear they are laying themselves open to unlimited compensation claims. The US and Europe have fought hard to minimise any substantial action on this agenda, but developing countries are unlikely to give way unless stronger action is promised on reducing emissions and a major worldwide insurance scheme is outlined.
If commitments are made to provide climate finance, poor countries could achieve spectacular success in developing green economies, says Oxfam. National plans drawn up by Ethiopia show how climate finance could allow the country to lift millions of people out of poverty while avoiding annual carbon emissions. Peru argues that it could increase its GDP by nearly 1% more than business as usual while halving its emissions at the same time, and Indonesia could fulfil its plan to cut emissions by 41% in 15 years.
Will a deal be fair?Developing countries have been consistently outraged that rich countries, which have largely caused climate change, are fighting to do as little as possible. But working out how the historical and future financial burden should fall is politically fraught. Some scientists, backed by countries like China and India, have tried to build an “equity calculator” based on capacity, responsibility and need. Separately, Oxfam has calculated that the US should be responsible for providing 56% of financial flows to shift the world on to a low-carbon path during the first commitment period of the new agreement, with 22% coming from the EU and 10% from Japan. Other climate finance contributors should be Russia, Brazil, Korea and Mexico.
Realistically, the politicians who arrive for the high-level segment of the talks in a week’s time will be left to cobble together what they can and the climate talks will lurch forward to Paris. With only a few days’ negotiations left, and the gulf between countries so large, the best that can be expected is a weak deal in Paris .
www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/dec/01/will-lima-climate-talks-pave-way-for-a-binding-treaty-in-paris-in-2015?
When, on Monday morning in Peru, 4,000 diplomats from the world’s 196 countries start their mammoth session to negotiate a new legally-binding global climate deal, they will know they are in the last chance saloon. COP 20 in Lima is the last full meeting before Paris in a year’s time, when the deal is due to be signed. If countries cannot bury most of their differences on the major issues by Friday week, then the chances of a meaningful agreement next year are slim. The result of failure would be that developing countries are condemned to unchecked climate change for another generation, and the UN process which relies on consensus to get results is fatally undermined.
On the surface, all is going to the plan of the rich countries and the big emitters. Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping of China, who between them are responsible for 42% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, have agreed a deal on climate change. The US will cut US emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, while China has pledged that emissions will fall after 2030. Europe, meanwhile, has agreed to a binding 40% cut by 2030 from 1990 levels. In addition, rich countries have pledged $9.7bn to the new UN Green Climate Fund (GCF). And it has been agreed that, by March next year, every country in the world will have established plans for reducing or constraining emissions as well as producing detailed plans on how they intend to fund climate adaptation.
In reality, the questions start here.
Will developed countries do more?
Lima is the last chance that developing countries have to push for more action from developed countries in the period 2015-2020. To the despair of the poorest countries, the rich have fought to do little more than the very minimum needed, and hopes are already fading that emissions can be held to a 2C rise, considered by science the minimum to avoid dangerous climate change. The recent US-China pact requires neither superpower to do very much, and has dashed all hopes that Paris 2015 will result in the setting of ambitious targets.
Many rich countries now want to sign up to a weak agreement, one with pledges to achieve the targets but no legally-binding requirement, though the EU says it is arguing for legally-binding mitigation targets. The Umbrella Group of countries, which includes the US, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Ukraine and Japan, are all pushing this line of minimal legal requirement.
Some of the major emerging economies like Korea, Mexico and Brazil and are now hiding behind the poorer developing countries and are not willing to take on substantial emission reduction targets. Their emissions and economies have grown rapidly, yet they are still crying poor.
Developing countries will press strongly in Lima for solid pre-2020 commitments in accordance with scientific assessments. But if the rich and the big emitters do not move, then the result will be worldwide disappointment and cynicism about the UN process. The worry for developing countries is that the less that rich countries do, the more they themselves will have to take on commitments post-2020.
Who pays?
Developing countries last month publicly welcomed the $9.7bn pledged for the GCF, but were in fact bitterly disappointed that it was so little. The money – no more than City of London financial workers are paid as bonuses each year – is to cover 2015-2020 and is so far from what is considered necessary as to be laughable.
Resentment is guaranteed at Lima. Developing countries will press strongly for assurances that the contributions to the GCF are raised to at least $15bn – the minimum necessary, they say, for making it a credible institution. More importantly, they will also want further commitments that $100bn a year will be raised after 2020. This was pledged in 2010, but so far no mechanism has been agreed on how it can be scaled up.
Developing countries will separately press for compensation for the “loss and damages” caused by climate change. The idea has been strongly resisted by the US and other rich countries, which fear they are laying themselves open to unlimited compensation claims. The US and Europe have fought hard to minimise any substantial action on this agenda, but developing countries are unlikely to give way unless stronger action is promised on reducing emissions and a major worldwide insurance scheme is outlined.
If commitments are made to provide climate finance, poor countries could achieve spectacular success in developing green economies, says Oxfam. National plans drawn up by Ethiopia show how climate finance could allow the country to lift millions of people out of poverty while avoiding annual carbon emissions. Peru argues that it could increase its GDP by nearly 1% more than business as usual while halving its emissions at the same time, and Indonesia could fulfil its plan to cut emissions by 41% in 15 years.
Will a deal be fair?Developing countries have been consistently outraged that rich countries, which have largely caused climate change, are fighting to do as little as possible. But working out how the historical and future financial burden should fall is politically fraught. Some scientists, backed by countries like China and India, have tried to build an “equity calculator” based on capacity, responsibility and need. Separately, Oxfam has calculated that the US should be responsible for providing 56% of financial flows to shift the world on to a low-carbon path during the first commitment period of the new agreement, with 22% coming from the EU and 10% from Japan. Other climate finance contributors should be Russia, Brazil, Korea and Mexico.
Realistically, the politicians who arrive for the high-level segment of the talks in a week’s time will be left to cobble together what they can and the climate talks will lurch forward to Paris. With only a few days’ negotiations left, and the gulf between countries so large, the best that can be expected is a weak deal in Paris .
www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/dec/01/will-lima-climate-talks-pave-way-for-a-binding-treaty-in-paris-in-2015?
Why Engaging In Lima Is Crucial
COP20 in Lima is the foremost, principal opportunity for global nations to negotiate and shape the contribution they will give to vastly reduce their carbon emissions, before a definitive commitment in Paris. Held in conjunction with COP 20, the Sustainable Innovation Forum 2014 (SIF14) in partnership with UNEP is the essential platform to showcase your undertaking to mobilize the green economy, and enable low carbon development.
COP 20. Lima. The cornerstone for commitment to the future of our climate.
Innovative policy, finance, technology and leadership are fundamental to achieving a climate neutral future. Now in its fifth year, SIF 14 brings together leaders from business, government, finance and NGOs to catalyse sustainable innovation and mobilize the green economy. Join the debate and idea sharing around technology and solutions that can be turned into positive actions to climate-proof the post-2015 development agenda.
COP 20. Lima. The cornerstone for commitment to the future of our climate.
Innovative policy, finance, technology and leadership are fundamental to achieving a climate neutral future. Now in its fifth year, SIF 14 brings together leaders from business, government, finance and NGOs to catalyse sustainable innovation and mobilize the green economy. Join the debate and idea sharing around technology and solutions that can be turned into positive actions to climate-proof the post-2015 development agenda.
New U.S. Ozone Rules Likely to Be Felt Nationwide
By Wendy Koch PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 26, 2014
By Wendy Koch PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 26, 2014
More cities may need to crack down on smog caused by power plants, factories and cars.
More U.S. communities might be required to crack down on ozone, a smog-causing pollutant linked to asthma and heart disease, as part of a controversial federal proposal announced Wednesday. After years of delay, the Obama Administration faced a court-ordered December 1 deadline to update the current 2008 standard on ground-level ozone, a by-product of burning fossil fuels. Its proposal to toughen the ozone limit is one of several sweeping environmental efforts that have drawn opposition from Republicans in Congress and business groups because of potential economic costs.
"Bringing ozone pollution standards in line with the latest science will clean up our air, improve access to crucial air quality information, and protect those most at risk," Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said in announcing the standard. The EPA said that the people most affected by smog are children, older adults, and those who suffer from asthma or spend a lot of time outdoors.
Industry groups say a stricter standard would force many cities and counties to require pricey pollution-control equipment for vehicles, factories, and power plants, all of which would hike prices for consumers and manufacturers. "It will be the most expensive regulation of all time," says Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources at the National Association of Manufacturers. "This is not just a power plant rule. It hits everyone." He points to an NAM-commissioned study, released in July, which estimated that a stricter standard could cost the economy $270 billion a year from 2017 to 2040. Public health and environmental advocates say industry has cried wolf too many times.
"There is a long history of opponents overestimating the costs of compliance and underestimating the health benefits of cleaning up the air," says Elena Craft, a scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. She says the past 40 years have shown that air pollution can be cut dramatically without slowing economic growth. High in the atmosphere, ozone is not a problem. In fact, it can protect people from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays, which is why there have been global efforts to protect that ozone layer. (Related: "Whatever Happened to the Ozone Hole" and "Healing the Ozone Layer: Chemist Says Treaty Is Working.")
But at ground level, ozone is a corrosive gas that forms when tailpipe or smokestack emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are baked by the sun. It's usually worst in the summer. As a new fight looms in Washington, D.C., here's what you need to know about the EPA's ozone proposal, slated to be finalized in October.
1. How would the standard change?
The EPA is proposing to limit ozone in the air to between 65 and 70 parts per billion—down from the current 75 ppb—and will take public comment on a standard as low as 60 ppb. "Ozone is the most pervasive pollutant," says Paul Billings, a senior vice president of the American Lung Association. He says scientists have learned more about its hazardous health effects since the current standard was last updated, and he notes that research also links it to premature deaths, low birth weight, and neurological problems. This year the EPA's own staff and its advisory commission of independent scientists recommended a range of 60 to 70 ppb. Health and environmental groups, including the American Lung Association, have pushed for 60 ppb. NAM and other industry groups have urged no change.
2. How many communities would be affected?
More communities might not meet a stricter standard, but it's difficult to say how many. Forty-six areas—home to 123 million people, or 40 percent of the U.S. population—do not meet the current standard. Most of them are urban and include the nation's capital, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, and 15 areas in California, Los Angeles and San Francisco among them. Areas that don't take steps to meet the ozone standard risk several penalties, including the loss of federal highway funds. They would be given years, depending on the severity of their problem, to comply.
Most of the United States would not meet a 60 ppb standard, according to a map compiled by the American Petroleum Institute. Yet its map looks at a tougher standard than EPA is likely to adopt and is based on 2011-2013 air quality data whereas the EPA is expected to use later data. EPA officials told reporters Wednesday that, beginning in 2025, the agency projects 9 counties outside of California will violate the 70 ppb standard and 68 counties outside the state will violate the 65 ppb limit. Its projections are far lower than the number of counties whose monitors measured ozone above these levels based on 2011-2013 figures.
The officials said other upcoming EPA rules could help reduce ozone-related emissions, including more stringent standards for power plants and vehicles. "Whether these [rules] will be sufficient to help areas reach attainment is a key question," writes James E. McCarthy, an environmental policy specialist at the Congressional Research Service, in an October 2014 report. He says controlling ozone is more complicated than many other pollutants, because it is not directly emitted by power plants or other sources. So its amount depends not only on temperature and amount of sunshine but also the presence of precursor gases such as nitrogen oxide. The EPA says ozone standards that have required scrubbers and other pollution-control equipment have yielded dramatic results, helping to slash average ozone levels 33 percent from 1980 to 2013. "We fully expect this progress will continue," McCarthy said, noting California has become a "birthplace of innovation" that could help other parts of the country.
3. Why Has the Update Taken So Long?
Politics. The ozone standard has long been contentious. First established in 1971 and updated in 1979 and 1997, the current one was established during the George W. Bush administration. But public health and environmental groups have sued the federal government, saying it does not adequately protect human health as required by the Clean Air Act. In January 2010, the EPA said it would revisit the standard and subsequently submitted a 65 ppb update for White House review. In September 2011, after hearing industry complaints about the economic costs, President Obama ordered the EPA to withdraw its proposal, delaying an update until after his 2012 re-election and the 2014 mid-term elections. (See related story: "Obama: A No-Go on Ozone.")
4. How Costly Would the Standard Be?
The amount is fiercely debated. The EPA estimates that a 70 ppb standard will cost about $3.9 billion annually, beginning in 2025, and a 65 ppb standard will cost $15 billion. Eisenberg expects the costs will be much higher. He says most power plants already have equipment to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, so a tougher standard could force the closure or scrappage of not only power plants but also factories, heavy-duty vehicles, and even passenger cars. "Significant investments have already been made to reduce emissions, leaving few low-cost options as the ozone standard tightens," says theNAM report, conducted by NERA Economic Consulting.
Billings, of the American Lung Association, says many power plants don't use what he calls "mature, cost-effective" technology to reduce emissions. He says the health benefits of a stricter standard are enormous and could outweigh the costs. On Wednesday, the EPA said that every dollar spent to meet a tougher standard will return up to three dollars in health benefits. "These large health benefits will be gained from avoiding asthma attacks, heart attacks, missed school days and premature deaths," the agency said, estimating the annual benefits would range from $6.4 billion to $13 billion for a 70 ppb standard and $19 billion to $38 billion for 65 ppb.
The EPA said most U.S. counties with ozone monitors would meet the more protective standards "just with the rules and programs now in place or underway." The problem: these monitors are concentrated in cities, even though rural areas also have smog. At present, the Congressional Research Service reports, only 675 of the nation's 3,000 communities have ozone monitors in place. Also, the CRS reports, ozone concentrations as high as those in Los Angeles, the nation's smoggiest city, have been found near oil and gas fields—during winter—in rural areas of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. The sunlight needed to create ozone is magnified when reflected off heavy snow cover.
On Twitter: Follow Wendy Koch and get more environment and energy coverage at NatGeoGreen.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141126-new-epa-ozone-rule-air-pollution
More U.S. communities might be required to crack down on ozone, a smog-causing pollutant linked to asthma and heart disease, as part of a controversial federal proposal announced Wednesday. After years of delay, the Obama Administration faced a court-ordered December 1 deadline to update the current 2008 standard on ground-level ozone, a by-product of burning fossil fuels. Its proposal to toughen the ozone limit is one of several sweeping environmental efforts that have drawn opposition from Republicans in Congress and business groups because of potential economic costs.
"Bringing ozone pollution standards in line with the latest science will clean up our air, improve access to crucial air quality information, and protect those most at risk," Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said in announcing the standard. The EPA said that the people most affected by smog are children, older adults, and those who suffer from asthma or spend a lot of time outdoors.
Industry groups say a stricter standard would force many cities and counties to require pricey pollution-control equipment for vehicles, factories, and power plants, all of which would hike prices for consumers and manufacturers. "It will be the most expensive regulation of all time," says Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources at the National Association of Manufacturers. "This is not just a power plant rule. It hits everyone." He points to an NAM-commissioned study, released in July, which estimated that a stricter standard could cost the economy $270 billion a year from 2017 to 2040. Public health and environmental advocates say industry has cried wolf too many times.
"There is a long history of opponents overestimating the costs of compliance and underestimating the health benefits of cleaning up the air," says Elena Craft, a scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. She says the past 40 years have shown that air pollution can be cut dramatically without slowing economic growth. High in the atmosphere, ozone is not a problem. In fact, it can protect people from the sun's harmful ultraviolet rays, which is why there have been global efforts to protect that ozone layer. (Related: "Whatever Happened to the Ozone Hole" and "Healing the Ozone Layer: Chemist Says Treaty Is Working.")
But at ground level, ozone is a corrosive gas that forms when tailpipe or smokestack emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are baked by the sun. It's usually worst in the summer. As a new fight looms in Washington, D.C., here's what you need to know about the EPA's ozone proposal, slated to be finalized in October.
1. How would the standard change?
The EPA is proposing to limit ozone in the air to between 65 and 70 parts per billion—down from the current 75 ppb—and will take public comment on a standard as low as 60 ppb. "Ozone is the most pervasive pollutant," says Paul Billings, a senior vice president of the American Lung Association. He says scientists have learned more about its hazardous health effects since the current standard was last updated, and he notes that research also links it to premature deaths, low birth weight, and neurological problems. This year the EPA's own staff and its advisory commission of independent scientists recommended a range of 60 to 70 ppb. Health and environmental groups, including the American Lung Association, have pushed for 60 ppb. NAM and other industry groups have urged no change.
2. How many communities would be affected?
More communities might not meet a stricter standard, but it's difficult to say how many. Forty-six areas—home to 123 million people, or 40 percent of the U.S. population—do not meet the current standard. Most of them are urban and include the nation's capital, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, and 15 areas in California, Los Angeles and San Francisco among them. Areas that don't take steps to meet the ozone standard risk several penalties, including the loss of federal highway funds. They would be given years, depending on the severity of their problem, to comply.
Most of the United States would not meet a 60 ppb standard, according to a map compiled by the American Petroleum Institute. Yet its map looks at a tougher standard than EPA is likely to adopt and is based on 2011-2013 air quality data whereas the EPA is expected to use later data. EPA officials told reporters Wednesday that, beginning in 2025, the agency projects 9 counties outside of California will violate the 70 ppb standard and 68 counties outside the state will violate the 65 ppb limit. Its projections are far lower than the number of counties whose monitors measured ozone above these levels based on 2011-2013 figures.
The officials said other upcoming EPA rules could help reduce ozone-related emissions, including more stringent standards for power plants and vehicles. "Whether these [rules] will be sufficient to help areas reach attainment is a key question," writes James E. McCarthy, an environmental policy specialist at the Congressional Research Service, in an October 2014 report. He says controlling ozone is more complicated than many other pollutants, because it is not directly emitted by power plants or other sources. So its amount depends not only on temperature and amount of sunshine but also the presence of precursor gases such as nitrogen oxide. The EPA says ozone standards that have required scrubbers and other pollution-control equipment have yielded dramatic results, helping to slash average ozone levels 33 percent from 1980 to 2013. "We fully expect this progress will continue," McCarthy said, noting California has become a "birthplace of innovation" that could help other parts of the country.
3. Why Has the Update Taken So Long?
Politics. The ozone standard has long been contentious. First established in 1971 and updated in 1979 and 1997, the current one was established during the George W. Bush administration. But public health and environmental groups have sued the federal government, saying it does not adequately protect human health as required by the Clean Air Act. In January 2010, the EPA said it would revisit the standard and subsequently submitted a 65 ppb update for White House review. In September 2011, after hearing industry complaints about the economic costs, President Obama ordered the EPA to withdraw its proposal, delaying an update until after his 2012 re-election and the 2014 mid-term elections. (See related story: "Obama: A No-Go on Ozone.")
4. How Costly Would the Standard Be?
The amount is fiercely debated. The EPA estimates that a 70 ppb standard will cost about $3.9 billion annually, beginning in 2025, and a 65 ppb standard will cost $15 billion. Eisenberg expects the costs will be much higher. He says most power plants already have equipment to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, so a tougher standard could force the closure or scrappage of not only power plants but also factories, heavy-duty vehicles, and even passenger cars. "Significant investments have already been made to reduce emissions, leaving few low-cost options as the ozone standard tightens," says theNAM report, conducted by NERA Economic Consulting.
Billings, of the American Lung Association, says many power plants don't use what he calls "mature, cost-effective" technology to reduce emissions. He says the health benefits of a stricter standard are enormous and could outweigh the costs. On Wednesday, the EPA said that every dollar spent to meet a tougher standard will return up to three dollars in health benefits. "These large health benefits will be gained from avoiding asthma attacks, heart attacks, missed school days and premature deaths," the agency said, estimating the annual benefits would range from $6.4 billion to $13 billion for a 70 ppb standard and $19 billion to $38 billion for 65 ppb.
The EPA said most U.S. counties with ozone monitors would meet the more protective standards "just with the rules and programs now in place or underway." The problem: these monitors are concentrated in cities, even though rural areas also have smog. At present, the Congressional Research Service reports, only 675 of the nation's 3,000 communities have ozone monitors in place. Also, the CRS reports, ozone concentrations as high as those in Los Angeles, the nation's smoggiest city, have been found near oil and gas fields—during winter—in rural areas of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. The sunlight needed to create ozone is magnified when reflected off heavy snow cover.
On Twitter: Follow Wendy Koch and get more environment and energy coverage at NatGeoGreen.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141126-new-epa-ozone-rule-air-pollution
Nature Wants Her Carbon Back
Posted: 11/17/2014 3:00 pm EST Updated: 11/17/2014 8:59 pm EST
Posted: 11/17/2014 3:00 pm EST Updated: 11/17/2014 8:59 pm EST
By looking down, things are looking up.
Here's a little known fact about climate change: According to NOAA, if we could magically cut all current CO2 emissions worldwide to zero today (a feat even Merlin couldn't achieve) it would do nothing to stop climate change from continuing to get worse for centuries. Unless we actually draw some of the carbon already emitted back down to earth we are simply telling a 400-pound patient to gain weight a little more slowly.
Amazingly, however, doing so may be significantly easier than reducing emissions. According to a steadily increasing number of studies, it turns out we can blow by the goal of slowing climate change and actually reverse it. While we've all been looking to the atmosphere and the amounts of CO2 we emit into it for the answer, the solution itself may be right under our feet. In the dirt.
According to the latest research from Ohio State University's Rattan Lal, Texas A&M's Richard Teague, IFOAM's Andre Leu (as reported in the UN paper "Wake Up Before It's Too Late" (UN) and the Rodale Institute anywhere from one-third to one-half of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere comes from industrial agriculture. That's more than all the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels worldwide. How is it possible that with the entire planet focusing on reducing CO2 emissions we're not even paying lip service to the single largest contributor? (Rodale)
But that's only half of the story. To makes matters worse, industrial agriculture compounds the problem by preventing soil from reabsorbing that carbon, thus trapping it in the atmosphere.
To understand how, it's important to remember a few simple facts: There is no waste in nature (she reuses everything); We don't create carbon (we just move it from place to place); and, nature is literally dying to take back the excess carbon we put into the atmosphere and reuse it to grow us more stuff.
So why isn't nature doing this? Turns out that our mistreatment of soil is preventing nature from doing what she does naturally and cycling carbon back from the atmosphere. We are literally disrupting the process of photosynthesis -- where plants break CO2 molecules apart, release the oxygen and take the carbon underground -- by killing the life that should exist in soil that needs that carbon. We do this by spraying it with chemicals, tilling and killing the latticework of fungi, and growing one plant in a field when nature needs variety the same way we need proteins and fats and fruits and vegetables to remain healthy.
Those same studies report that transforming even a small part of industrial agriculture land to healthier, regenerative methods can lead to sequestering more than 100% of current CO2 emissions in just three years. And everything the soil sequesters that's above what we're currently emitting will come from -- you guessed it -- the excess in the atmosphere. That means we are literally beginning to reverse climate change in just a few years. Re-open the pathways, draw down the carbon. (Drawdown)
But haven't we been told we'll all starve to death without industrial agriculture? Absolutely, and by some of the same people who tell us the science is still out on climate change. The science shows quite the opposite. In fact, regenerative farming yields are equal to industrial yields in normal weather, and superior to them in stress times of drought and flooding. So we're not simply reversing climate change, we are creating more food, and more food security. (IFOAM Report)
Currently we have over 400 PPM of carbon in the atmosphere. We have been told we need to stay below 350 to maintain a livable planet. New data, however, report that every 1% of organic matter added to our farming and grazing soil reduces the PPM by 50. Studies have also shown that we could literally return the atmosphere to pre-Industrial Age conditions in as little as twenty years (Drawdown) -- the Chinese government studies say it may be forty, but I'd take that deal happily.
The Industrial Revolution lead to explosions in human development, and Industrial Agriculture has enabled us to feed a population that went from one billion to over seven virtually overnight.
But now we know that an unintended consequence of how we fed those people is climate change. Just like it is with how we've produced energy. Fortunately, we also now know that we don't need to continue to use these destructive techniques to feed and power the same amount of people.
Need more proof? Nature's done this before. During the Cambrian period, and in other volcanic times, the earth saw levels of 600 to as much as 7,000 PPM. And every time, without humans messing up the process, the carbon was reabsorbed into the soil and created an explosion of plant growth. So think abundance, not starvation.
One final point -- this is not a license to continue polluting and letting nature deal with it. It's a gift of time. Time to transform into a carbon-neutral society while also dealing with climate change.
Nature wants to do this. In fact, nature needs to do this. If we let her the planet, and we humans, can all breathe easier.
For more information visit The Carbon Underground here.
www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-kopald/nature-wants-her-carbon-b_b_6173358.html
What The U.S.-China Climate Deal Means For The Rest Of The World
Posted: 11/12/2014 2:06 pm EST Updated: 11/12/2014 3:59 pm EST By KARL RITTER
STOCKHOLM (AP) — The world's outlook for reaching a global climate deal next year brightened Wednesday as China and the U.S. — the top two polluters — presented a joint plan to limit emissions of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases that are blamed for warming the planet.
The unexpected move was praised worldwide as a historic step in the fight against climate change, though some analysts said the targets aren't ambitious enough to prevent global warming from reaching dangerous levels. The announcements from the American and Chinese presidents, Barack Obama and Xi Jinping, drew praise from environmentalists who had feared China's desire for fast growth and Obama's weakened political standing might prevent such action.
They were a less welcome surprise for U.S. Republicans, who will take control of Congress next year. They pointed out that the deal lets China keep increasing emissions while U.S. has to cut. Here are some questions and answers about the significance of the announcement and the challenges that lie ahead for the United States and China — and for the rest of the world — as they negotiate an elusive climate pact that's supposed to be adopted in Paris next year.
WHAT DID THE US AND CHINA ANNOUNCE?
China, whose emissions are rising as it builds new coal plants to fuel its economic growth, set a target for its emissions to peak in 2030 or earlier. That's the first time China has set a deadline for stopping its emissions growth. China also said it would increase the share of clean energy sources like wind and solar power to 20 percent by 2030, about double what it is today. The U.S. set a goal to make its 2025 emissions between 26 and 28 percent lower than they were in 2005. That would be faster than previous goals, and the Obama administration says it would help the U.S. achieve its longer-term goal of bringing emissions 80 percent lower than 2005 by 2050. U.S. emissions peaked in 2007, but about half the reductions since have been due to the recession. Emissions increased last year.
WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE TARGETS?
China is the biggest source of greenhouse gas pollution, pumping out about a quarter of the world's emissions. The U.S. is No. 2 with about 15 percent. The two countries are often adversaries at U.N. climate talks, and their unprecedented joint announcement sends an important signal that a deal is possible next year. Last month, the European Union said that its 2030 emissions would be 40 percent lower than in 1990. With pledges from the top three emitters on the table a year ahead of the Paris climate summit, pressure now builds on other countries including India, Russia and Japan to present their own targets.
Guri Bang, of the CICERO environmental research group in Norway, has followed the international climate talks for 15 years. She said that for the first time since a failed summit in Copenhagen in 2009, there is now "reason to be positive" about the negotiations.
WHAT OTHER ISSUES NEED TO BE SOLVED FOR A GLOBAL CLIMATE DEAL?
In the last global emissions pact, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, rich countries took on legally binding commitments while developing countries did not. Many developing countries want that arrangement preserved in next year's deal, while developed countries including the United States — which didn't sign up for Kyoto — don't. And in fact, for the United States, any binding treaty would have little chance of being ratified by Congress.
Rich countries agreed in 2009 to jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor countries cut their emissions and adapt to rising seas, desertification and other fallout from climate change. Developing countries want the rich nations to make firm commitments to live up to their pledges.
WHAT IMPACT WILL THE US-CHINA DEAL HAVE ON GLOBAL WARMING?
It's difficult to assess the impact because China isn't committing to a specific level of emissions. China's target is for when emissions should stop rising — not how high they should reach. Also, it's unclear whether China's emissions would plateau or decline quickly after that. Either way, China's increases between now and 2030 will dwarf any decreases the U.S. can achieve, scientists tracking global emissions told The Associated Press, meaning global emissions will continue to rise.
Global temperatures have risen 0.8 C (1.4 F) since pre-industrial times, and the U.N. climate talks are aimed at keeping that number from topping 2 degrees C (3.2 degrees F). The U.N.'s expert panel says that would require cutting global emissions by 40-70 percent by 2050 and to zero by the end of the century.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN CHALLENGES FOR CHINA?
Coal still fuels about 80 percent of China's electricity, and heavy industries such as steel, cement and chemicals heavily depend on coal. Moving away from that will require China to transforming the very makeup of its economy. The government has already been trying to boost less polluting sectors of the economy, such as high-tech, and in fact coal use fell by a percentage point last year. Still, quitting coal will require a massive investment in natural gas and renewable energy.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN CHALLENGES FOR THE US?
A significant proportion of the reductions Obama promised hinge on cutting carbon pollution from coal-fired plants. But Republicans are fighting the plans both at the state level and in Congress. Lawsuits have already been filed against the proposals, setting the stage for a lengthy battle that's likely to continue well beyond Obama's term. The new pollution standards could face further obstacles if the next president doesn't support them.
WHY HAS IT BEEN SO HARD TO GET A GLOBAL CLIMATE AGREEMENT?
Since they began more than two decades ago, the U.N. climate talks have been bogged down by arguments between rich and poor countries over who should do what to fix global warming. Rich countries say developing countries need to act because they account for most of the growth. Developing countries say the rich have already pumped out so much pollution for so long that they should take the lead.
The U.S. and China have been on opposite sides of that debate, which is why their joint announcement is seen as such a breakthrough.
Associated Press writers Josh Lederman and Jack Chang in Beijing and Dina Cappiello and Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed to this report.
Karl Ritter is reachable on http://twitter.com/karl_ritter
www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/12/us-china-climate-deal_n_6147148.html?cps=gravity
The unexpected move was praised worldwide as a historic step in the fight against climate change, though some analysts said the targets aren't ambitious enough to prevent global warming from reaching dangerous levels. The announcements from the American and Chinese presidents, Barack Obama and Xi Jinping, drew praise from environmentalists who had feared China's desire for fast growth and Obama's weakened political standing might prevent such action.
They were a less welcome surprise for U.S. Republicans, who will take control of Congress next year. They pointed out that the deal lets China keep increasing emissions while U.S. has to cut. Here are some questions and answers about the significance of the announcement and the challenges that lie ahead for the United States and China — and for the rest of the world — as they negotiate an elusive climate pact that's supposed to be adopted in Paris next year.
WHAT DID THE US AND CHINA ANNOUNCE?
China, whose emissions are rising as it builds new coal plants to fuel its economic growth, set a target for its emissions to peak in 2030 or earlier. That's the first time China has set a deadline for stopping its emissions growth. China also said it would increase the share of clean energy sources like wind and solar power to 20 percent by 2030, about double what it is today. The U.S. set a goal to make its 2025 emissions between 26 and 28 percent lower than they were in 2005. That would be faster than previous goals, and the Obama administration says it would help the U.S. achieve its longer-term goal of bringing emissions 80 percent lower than 2005 by 2050. U.S. emissions peaked in 2007, but about half the reductions since have been due to the recession. Emissions increased last year.
WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE TARGETS?
China is the biggest source of greenhouse gas pollution, pumping out about a quarter of the world's emissions. The U.S. is No. 2 with about 15 percent. The two countries are often adversaries at U.N. climate talks, and their unprecedented joint announcement sends an important signal that a deal is possible next year. Last month, the European Union said that its 2030 emissions would be 40 percent lower than in 1990. With pledges from the top three emitters on the table a year ahead of the Paris climate summit, pressure now builds on other countries including India, Russia and Japan to present their own targets.
Guri Bang, of the CICERO environmental research group in Norway, has followed the international climate talks for 15 years. She said that for the first time since a failed summit in Copenhagen in 2009, there is now "reason to be positive" about the negotiations.
WHAT OTHER ISSUES NEED TO BE SOLVED FOR A GLOBAL CLIMATE DEAL?
In the last global emissions pact, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, rich countries took on legally binding commitments while developing countries did not. Many developing countries want that arrangement preserved in next year's deal, while developed countries including the United States — which didn't sign up for Kyoto — don't. And in fact, for the United States, any binding treaty would have little chance of being ratified by Congress.
Rich countries agreed in 2009 to jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor countries cut their emissions and adapt to rising seas, desertification and other fallout from climate change. Developing countries want the rich nations to make firm commitments to live up to their pledges.
WHAT IMPACT WILL THE US-CHINA DEAL HAVE ON GLOBAL WARMING?
It's difficult to assess the impact because China isn't committing to a specific level of emissions. China's target is for when emissions should stop rising — not how high they should reach. Also, it's unclear whether China's emissions would plateau or decline quickly after that. Either way, China's increases between now and 2030 will dwarf any decreases the U.S. can achieve, scientists tracking global emissions told The Associated Press, meaning global emissions will continue to rise.
Global temperatures have risen 0.8 C (1.4 F) since pre-industrial times, and the U.N. climate talks are aimed at keeping that number from topping 2 degrees C (3.2 degrees F). The U.N.'s expert panel says that would require cutting global emissions by 40-70 percent by 2050 and to zero by the end of the century.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN CHALLENGES FOR CHINA?
Coal still fuels about 80 percent of China's electricity, and heavy industries such as steel, cement and chemicals heavily depend on coal. Moving away from that will require China to transforming the very makeup of its economy. The government has already been trying to boost less polluting sectors of the economy, such as high-tech, and in fact coal use fell by a percentage point last year. Still, quitting coal will require a massive investment in natural gas and renewable energy.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN CHALLENGES FOR THE US?
A significant proportion of the reductions Obama promised hinge on cutting carbon pollution from coal-fired plants. But Republicans are fighting the plans both at the state level and in Congress. Lawsuits have already been filed against the proposals, setting the stage for a lengthy battle that's likely to continue well beyond Obama's term. The new pollution standards could face further obstacles if the next president doesn't support them.
WHY HAS IT BEEN SO HARD TO GET A GLOBAL CLIMATE AGREEMENT?
Since they began more than two decades ago, the U.N. climate talks have been bogged down by arguments between rich and poor countries over who should do what to fix global warming. Rich countries say developing countries need to act because they account for most of the growth. Developing countries say the rich have already pumped out so much pollution for so long that they should take the lead.
The U.S. and China have been on opposite sides of that debate, which is why their joint announcement is seen as such a breakthrough.
Associated Press writers Josh Lederman and Jack Chang in Beijing and Dina Cappiello and Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed to this report.
Karl Ritter is reachable on http://twitter.com/karl_ritter
www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/12/us-china-climate-deal_n_6147148.html?cps=gravity
Dutch To Test Solar Panels On Bicycle Path
Bicyclists are forced to use the pavement passing a stretch of bicycle path where a solar panel roadway is being constructed in Krommenie,
north of Amsterdam, Netherlands, Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2014. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
Netherlands - A project dubbed “SolaRoad” gets underway in the Netherlands this week, testing roadways as a potential canvas to collect solar energy. Fittingly for the cycle-crazy Dutch, the first SolaRoad is a bike path not far from Amsterdam.
The path is built of massive, Lego-like modules of solar panels embedded in concrete, each with heavy-duty glass on top protecting them from wear. An additional rough translucent plastic coating ensures bikers don’t slip.
Sten de Wit of engineering firm TNO said Tuesday each square meter (yard) of road generates 50-70 kilowatt hours of energy per year. That’s about enough for the initial strip of 70 yards to supply power to one or two Dutch households.
The test in the town of Krommenie is slated to run three years and will cost 3 million euros ($3.7 million), funded equally by the province of North Holland and a consortium of Dutch companies eager to commercialize solar roads.
Although using roads for solar power may seem inconvenient and costly, De Wit says it enjoys significant advantages. Most obviously, the potential generating area is all but unlimited: in the Netherlands there are 35,000 kilometers (22,000 miles) of designated bike path alone. Unlike power plants, solar roads can be located near where people live, and they still wouldn’t take up land needed for other purposes. That’s crucial in the Netherlands, which is both one of the world’s most densely populated countries, and one of its most intensely farmed.
De Wit says despite the high costs of designing, building, installing and measuring performance of the first SolaRoad, successor projects may be profitable within a decade. As solar cells get ever-cheaper and more efficient, installation and maintenance are quickly becoming the most expensive part of solar power. “Rooftop arrays have only a small surface area and each has to be connected to the (electric) grid individually,” he said. But “road is laid down by the kilometer” and each segment can be easily chained together and connected to the grid at strategic locations.
“That means you’ll have economies of scale,” he said. “You’ll be able to push down installation costs way down proportionately.” The project is already up and generating electricity before its formal opening Wednesday.
www.vosizneias.com/183854/2014/11/12/netherlands-dutch-to-test-solar-panels-on-bicycle-path
north of Amsterdam, Netherlands, Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2014. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
Netherlands - A project dubbed “SolaRoad” gets underway in the Netherlands this week, testing roadways as a potential canvas to collect solar energy. Fittingly for the cycle-crazy Dutch, the first SolaRoad is a bike path not far from Amsterdam.
The path is built of massive, Lego-like modules of solar panels embedded in concrete, each with heavy-duty glass on top protecting them from wear. An additional rough translucent plastic coating ensures bikers don’t slip.
Sten de Wit of engineering firm TNO said Tuesday each square meter (yard) of road generates 50-70 kilowatt hours of energy per year. That’s about enough for the initial strip of 70 yards to supply power to one or two Dutch households.
The test in the town of Krommenie is slated to run three years and will cost 3 million euros ($3.7 million), funded equally by the province of North Holland and a consortium of Dutch companies eager to commercialize solar roads.
Although using roads for solar power may seem inconvenient and costly, De Wit says it enjoys significant advantages. Most obviously, the potential generating area is all but unlimited: in the Netherlands there are 35,000 kilometers (22,000 miles) of designated bike path alone. Unlike power plants, solar roads can be located near where people live, and they still wouldn’t take up land needed for other purposes. That’s crucial in the Netherlands, which is both one of the world’s most densely populated countries, and one of its most intensely farmed.
De Wit says despite the high costs of designing, building, installing and measuring performance of the first SolaRoad, successor projects may be profitable within a decade. As solar cells get ever-cheaper and more efficient, installation and maintenance are quickly becoming the most expensive part of solar power. “Rooftop arrays have only a small surface area and each has to be connected to the (electric) grid individually,” he said. But “road is laid down by the kilometer” and each segment can be easily chained together and connected to the grid at strategic locations.
“That means you’ll have economies of scale,” he said. “You’ll be able to push down installation costs way down proportionately.” The project is already up and generating electricity before its formal opening Wednesday.
www.vosizneias.com/183854/2014/11/12/netherlands-dutch-to-test-solar-panels-on-bicycle-path