Four key themes are critical to watch the remainder of this year that are essential ingredients for progress on international global warming action: (1) the actions countries take at home right now; (2) the actions countries commit to implement at Rio+20; (3) how much progress is made in closing the “mitigation gap”; and (4) what stage is set this year for the international legal agreement that is to be reached in 2015.

[This is a four-part post.  Part 1—this post— focuses on the actions at that are happening at home in key countries and a couple of key issues to watch in these countries through the rest of this year.  Part 2 considers the actions at Rio+20 that are essential for moving forward on global warming action.  Part 3 discusses key actions to “close the mitigation gap” that are at critical turning points in 2012.  Part 4 outlines some key debates this year that are important to “lay the groundwork for future action”.] 

ACTING AT HOME RIGHT NOW

No global political signal or agreement is sufficient if countries don’t act at home to pass laws, adopt regulations, or support incentives which spur the necessary actions.  As a result, what happens in key countries around the world is essential for putting the world on a safer path.  So here are some key actions to watch in some of the key countries the rest of this year.

Some important countries have taken additional action at home this year.  Mexico has adopted a national law which establishes in domestic law the country’s target to reduce its emissions 30 percent below business-as-usual emissions by 2020 and 50 percent below 2000 levels by 2050.  The law sets in place the foundation for even greater action by Mexico under future Administrations.

The South Korean Government approved a mandatory carbon trading program for its biggest polluters. The legislation is set to go into effect in 2015 and would cap the carbon pollution from power plants, steel plants, ship makers, and large universities.  The final details are still to be worked out sometime this year so stay tuned.

South Africa announced that it will introduce a rising price on carbon pollution from major sources starting in 2013.  The proposal is to implement the carbon tax at a level of $16 per ton in 2013, with annual increases of 10 percent through 2019.  Final details could come later this year.

The European Union program to reduce the carbon pollution from aviation has gone into effect.  Starting this January all aircraft that choose to use European airports have to reduce their carbon pollution that is causing global warming.  It is a common-sense approach which helps to slow the growth of pollution from aviation – which is set to almost double by 2025 if left uncontrolled.  Unfortunately this program is under constant attack by the “coalition of the inaction”, but to date the E.U. has shown no signs that it is willing to let these attacks undermine its law. 

The U.S. has proposed some new rules for the carbon pollution from power plants and methane from natural gas.  More than one million citizens have submitted comments in support of the power plant rules—the most in the history of any environmental rule in the U.S.  In addition, the U.S. government has finalized important standards for major appliances that will significantly reduce how much energy they use (e.g., clothes washing machines and microwaves).  Later this year we also expect that the final standards for the global warming pollution from new passenger vehicles will be extended through 2025.

Clean energy continues to soar. In 2011, new clean energy investments rose to a record $263 billion – a 6.5 percent increase from last year. So while many policymakers and commentators still perceive renewable energy as something that can be done only if you have lots of extra money for incentives, the reality is quite different.  For example, one new study from Bloomberg New Energy Finance concluded that: “power generated from solar photovoltaic (PV) panels is much closer to competitiveness with conventional electricity generation than many policy-makers and commentators have realized.”

The Brazilian decision on changes to the forest law – will reductions in deforestation slow? In recent years Brazil has shown remarkable progress in reducing the rate of deforestation and the associated global warming pollution thanks to some policies the government adopted.  But just as Brazil is about to host a critically important high-level Summit – Rio+20—President Dilma Rousseff is being confronted with a law that changes the Brazilian Forest Law in a way that would dramatically increase deforestation in the coming years. Will she veto this law as more than 1.8 million people have now demanded or will Rio+20 be chopped down by deforestation?

ACTING NOW: WHAT OTHER ACTIONS WILL COME THIS YEAR?

Over the remainder of this year it will be critical that the countries that made commitments at Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban follow through with even more action as their existing action isn’t sufficient to meet their commitments or fully address global warming.  In addition, it will be critical that the remaining big polluters step up to the plate and make commitments as there is a “missing 20%” of the world’s global warming pollution that have yet to outline their commitments.

Will further steps be taken this year by the key countries and will new countries come forward with commitments?  Rio+20 and the climate negotiations in Doha provide a prime opportunity for these actions to materialize (see the next posts for more details).

This piece was originally published at NRDC’s Switchboard.

——————-

Photo: Courtesy of chucksta420, under the Creative Commons License.

This post was written by Michael Davidson.

One block from my office in Washington, DC, young people frustrated by the lack of accountability and democracy in corporate America have gathered to demand and demonstrate change. I hear many voices of my generation as I walk through McPherson Square, but our concerns are unmistakable: unemployment, corruption, massive subsidies to established industries, corporate irresponsibility and—inherent in all these problems—environmental injustice on a global scale. Given the increasingly precarious world that we inhabit, there is much to do at next year’s Rio+20 Earth Summit on sustainable development. What is certain: The status quo is unsustainable, unacceptable, and we need to tell the United Nations so, in strong, clear words.

Young people everywhere are worried about what climate change will mean for their lives. They, more than anyone else, understand how urgently we must find solutions to our global environmental problems. Already the health and wellbeing of hundreds of millions of youth are at environmental risk. For example, up to 30 percent of young people in many African and Asian nations do not even have toilets and decent sanitation services, further compounding the threat of climate change-intensified diseases. The links between the health of our environment and the socio-economic challenges inspiring youth to take to the streets are clearer each day.

That’s why this week NRDC is stepping up its “Race to Rio” campaign.  We are working with civil society around the world on a global call to the United Nations, telling governments that they need to do much more to protect the planet and its youth (over three billion under the age of 25). November 1 is the official deadline for formal input into the outcomes text process before countries start negotiating in the build up to the Earth Summit. If we don’t raise our collective voice now, nations will spend months arguing about abstractions that do little more than maintain the status quo, when they could be working toward ambitious, measurable goals.

If you want a sense of what the status quo means for your future, check out the Carbon Tracker Initiative: The world’s stock exchanges have already invested in five times more fossil fuel reserves than we can burn while warming the planet by less than 2 degrees-C, a dangerous tipping point. In other words, we’re sitting on a huge “carbon bubble,” financially speaking—an investment in fuels we shouldn’t burn—and my generation, of young people hoping to retire around 2050, is going to be left footing the bill for these sunk costs. Such rampant, shortsighted investment is further exacerbated by ecological scarcity and perverse subsidies that reward rapid and irresponsible resource extraction. Globally, fossil fuels were subsidized by $409 billion in 2010, and these gratuitous grants are not all going to the world’s poor: only 8 percent went to the poorest 20 percent of Earth’s population. It is clear that the current environmentally-insensitive, under-performing economy cannot ensure employment for the next generation.

Meanwhile, governments consistently fail to recognize that our planet has limits. We have already exceeded three of nine planetary boundaries identified by leading scientists (those boundaries related to climate change, biological diversity, and nitrogen release into the biosphere). Yet leading economists seem content to continue predicting infinite growth on a finite planet. Nor do our national growth plans account for natural capital—those vast, tangible benefits we derive from ecosystems and biodiversity—which is being depleted by trillions of dollars per year. These stark trends must change.

We deserve an Earth Summit that does more than just deliver yet another agenda with lofty, imprecise goals for the distant future. Not unlike those in McPherson Square, young people around the world in preparation for the summit have denounced the weak implementation, corruption, and lack of accountability of the existing set of rules – which for sustainable development includes hundreds of commitments, pledges, treaties and action plans. Instead, during next year’s Rio+20 Earth Summit—our summit—we want our national and subnational governments, as well as businesses and non-government groups, to take science-based, measurable and transformative actions to correct our course on Earth. We have some concrete ideas, and there are many more.

“The Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development is one of the most important meetings in UN history,” declared UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, recently. “It will help to determine our collective future. Young people can and must play a central role in bringing dynamic new ideas, fresh thinking and energy to the Rio+20 process.” Let’s respond to his call to action.

Before November 1st, tell the UN and world governments that the status quo is unsustainable.

Image: NRDC, Earth Boy

Representatives Mica (R-FL), Rahall (D-WV), Petri (R-WI), Costello (D-IL), Hultgren (R-IL), Duncan (R-TN), Shuster (R-PA), Richardson (D-CA), Holden (D-PA), Pierluis (D-Puerto Rico) introduced the new bill – the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011.  The name of the legislation describes the crazy idea behind this bill: it would attempt to prohibit another country from taking reasonable steps to control carbon pollution.  That isn’t a principle for which the American people stand – we don’t challenge another country for addressing major environmental challenges facing humanity.  We stand for leadership and action to address major challenges.  This legislation would take us backward. 

All of these same Members voted against the House climate bill which would have controlled aviation’s carbon pollution in a very similar manner to the European program – except Rep. Richardson, Hultgren (not in office)*, and Pierluis (doesn’t vote)**.  All of these members, except Rep. Richardson, also voted to strip EPA of their legally required mandate to control carbon pollution from the largest polluting sources.  With the odd exception of Representatives Richardson and Pierluis these are all Members of Congress that are opposed to any action to address climate change based upon their voting records. 

These Members have also received large donations from the airline industry over their career, according to Center for Responsive Politics (career totals; rank for the aviation industry in the  Members top contributors by sector): Mica ($642,993; #1); Rahall ($258,007; #4; Petri ($393,365; #1); Costello ($446,650; #4); Duncan ($526,008; #1); Shuster ($119,250; #11); Richardson ($99,500; #4); and Holden ($176,149; #15).  So it isn’t a surprise that they supported this, especially since the Air Transport Association – and its member airlines – strongly supported this legislation.      

There are too many mistruths in the press conference and the bill to rebut, but let’s quickly review some the facts (for a more extensive rebuttal see my commentary on language in the FAA reauthorization bill which had very similar language to this new bill). 

1. The European’s waited 15 years for a global solution which never materialized so they acted.  For almost 15 years the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) – the U.N. body tasked with coordinating international aviation – has failed to come up with mandatory global actions to significantly reduce aviation’s carbon pollution.  The Europeans invested major time and resources in the effort through ICAO to get a global solution.  After this failure, Europe took the reasonable step of introducing legislation within their legal system to require carbon pollution reductions from flights that use European airports.  So claims that the European system is a unilateral overreach are false.  They tried to get a global solution.  But after years and years of waiting a global solution never materialized.
2. European program is legal.  The Air Transport Association and US-based airlines challenged this program in a European Court.  A number of countries and environmental groups – some in the US – have intervened opposed to the airlines court case.  The court is set to decide later this year, but independent assessments have concluded that the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation in the EU’s program: “is consistent with all relevant international provisions and therefore permissible under international law”.
3. US companies are already competing to produce better airplanes.  US-based aircraft and engine manufacturers are already making strides to produce more efficient airplanes.  Boeing and Pratt & Whitney tout the fuel saving benefits of their aircraft and engines.  Claims of harm just don’t stack up when US-based aircraft manufacturers are already competing to produce aircraft that use less fuel and emit less carbon pollution.
4. European program regulates all carriers that use their airports.  They aren’t applying an arbitrary program targeted at the US or one that is different for flights from another country.  Their program applies the same standard for all flights that land at and take-off from European airports – regardless of where that flight takes off.  Indeed the EU program allows flights to/from a country to be excluded if they have an “equivalent measure” that reduces aviation’s carbon pollution.  They provide a way out – take action at home to control pollution. 

So this bill is wrong on policy, legal, and environmental grounds.  It is a short bill, but here is the meat of what it would direct the US government to do and what this means (my comments in italics).

“The Secretary of Transportation shall prohibit an operator of a civil aircraft of the United States from participating in any emissions trading scheme unilaterally established by the European Union”. 

This provision would basically require the US government to tell its companies not to comply with another countries’ law.  This is a principle which the US government wouldn’t allow for companies from another country that operate in the US.  Instead, when a flight takes off from Europe to the US it has to comply with US safety restrictions if it is to land in the US.  The European program is no different.  Any airline that wants to use European airports must comply with EU law requiring that they reduce their carbon pollution.

“The Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, and other appropriate officials of the United States Government shall use their authority to conduct international negotiations and take other actions necessary to ensure that operators of civil aircraft of the United States are held harmless from any emissions trading scheme unilaterally established by the European Union.” 

The language would task the US government to negotiate on be
half of the US-based carriers to take all necessary actions to ensure that the airlines aren’t impacted by the European law.  Of course, since the EU program will drive innovation, efficiency improvements, and purchases of new aircraft with reduced fuel use (and that American companies are already producing), the claim that it will cause harm is a bit of a stretch.  In fact, independent analysis conducted for the EU found that the cost of a roundtrip ticket could increase by a mere $11 – 57 per roundtrip between the US and Europe.  This is a very minor increase given that the airlines charge about the same amount for a passenger in the US to check bags.  So the claims of the US-based airlines that the sky will fall when the European program goes into effect next year are false.

This bill should stay stuck in the runway with a permanent delay.  This bill should be rejected by the House, never even considered by the Senate, and rejected by the Obama Administration as unhelpful to its efforts to be a leader in addressing global warming.  Instead, Congress and the Administration should take up the European offer to consider an equivalent set of measures that the US will adopt at home to reduce aviation’s carbon pollution.  So instead of saying “stop what you are doing”, we should be saying “here is what we are doing” to control the carbon pollution from aviation.

————–

* Rep. Hultgren (R-IL) has stated: “I don’t believe we have a significant impact on climate change.”  So it is very likely that he would have voted against that bill if he were in office.  He signed the American’s for Prosperity pledge to not control carbon pollution.

** Puerto Rico representatives don’t vote on such legislation.

Picture courtesy of Creative Commons: ReneeS.

So what are the key findings of these new reports (one from the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century –REN21—and the other from the UN Environment Program –UNEP)?

Renewable investments are a very large sector that is growing rapidly.  If it were a country, the total value of new renewable energy investments in 2010 would make it the 42nd largest economy in the world.*  According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance data, total new investments in renewable energy amounted to $211 billion in 2010 – a 32% increase from the previous year.  The value of renewable investments has been growing significantly from 2004 when data was first collected (see figure).  New renewable investments have achieved a staggering 539% increase since 2004.  That increase would compare very favorably to any economic sector in the world.  

More countries are taking action at home to spur renewable energy deployment.  At least 119 countries had some type of national policy target or renewable support policy.  The number of countries with such policies more than doubled since 2005.  As a result, commercial wind power exists in 83 countries – whereas just a handful had wind in the 1990s.  In 2010, solar PV capacity was added in more than 100 countries.  This shows that wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources aren’t some mythical source of energy that only a small number of countries can tap into.

Non-fossil energy* accounted for almost 50% of the new electricity capacity added in 2010.  Wind, solar, and geothermal accounted for about 30% of the estimated new electricity capacity brought on line in 2010.  If you include hydropower and biomass power then the share of non-fossil fuel power capacity was around 50% of the total new installed capacity in 2010 (see table).  While sources of electricity that contribute to global warming are still too large, this data shows that more countries are investing in renewable energy as they look to meet their growing energy needs.

Major growth is occurring in the developing world, especially China and India.  In 2010, developing countries overtook developed countries in terms of new financial investments in renewable energy (see figure).  China led the pack with $49 billion in new investments – a 28% increase from the previous year.  The U.S. was second with $25 billion.  Major developing countries have seen significant annual growth rates for the period 2004-2010: Brazil (62%), China (80%), India (19%), and Africa region (51%).  Similar trends are seen for important renewable technologies.  In 2010, China installed the most wind and solar thermal energy of any country.  India is currently fifth worldwide in total installed wind capacity.  In fact, 5 of the 10 largest wind turbine manufacturers in the world were companies founded in China and India.  Similarly, 9 out of the top 15 solar PV manufacturers were either from China or Taiwan (see REN21).

Earth Summit in Rio next year provides a huge opportunity for countries and companies to go even further in speeding up the deployment of renewable energy.  As world leader, CEOs, governors, and mayors show up in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil next year for the Earth Summit they’ll need to come prepared to show how they are going to take the next step.  What kinds of new policies will they implement to help renewable energy?  What new steps will the company take to help spur this development?  Will they make new commitments to increase renewable energy deployment? 

We hope that they take advantage of this opportunity and build upon this increasing renewable energy deployment.  This staggering growth should only be the beginning of a move to clean renewable energy in meeting the world’s energy needs.    

———

* New renewable energy investments are just behind the GDP of Israel and are larger than the GDP of Ireland, Chile, the Philippines (see World Bank GDP data).

** Note REN21 lists these as “renewable energy” in their totals.  The total presented her doesn’t include nuclear, which is another “non-fossil fuel” power generation source.  Also note the UNEP report has different figures for some of these totals.

So today, Environmental Defense Fund is running an advertisement that calls for the airlines challenging this ground-breaking program to stop their attacks and instead focus on finding solutions to reducing aviation’s contribution to global warming.  The US-based carriers have challenged this case in a European court.  The advertisement follows from a letter that six major environmental groups sent to the carriers in May calling on them to stop challenging the EU’s efforts while claiming to be green.  Unfortunately the news reports indicate that some in the US government support that position, although government officials reportedly declined to comment for the story.

As I said in the press release:

“It’s disappointing that some parties are apparently trying to align the U.S. government with the airlines against the world’s only enforceable program to reduce carbon pollution from airplanes.  But we’re confident that within the administration, cooler heads will recognize that President Obama needs to fight carbon pollution, rather than allowing some in his administration to fight anti-pollution initiatives.”

The Wall Street Journal didn’t provide a copy of the reported position, but the article states that:

“According to people familiar with the U.S. position, American officials will argue that the EU is taking a unilateral approach that violates international treaties and is illegally asserting jurisdiction in other countries.”

The European program is legal, a reasonable approach to combat global warming, and necessary given the lack of global progress for the past 12 years in efforts to control aviation’s carbon pollution.  Left unregulated, aviation emissions are on pace to quadruple by 2050.  Now is not the time to pull back from efforts to combat global warming. 

While the meeting between the EU and US will be important, it is the first of what will likely be a long discussion on this issue.  The Europeans should stand firm as the sky will not fall when this program goes into operation next year.  I hope that the US takes advantage of this opportunity and focuses on finding solutions to reduce US aviation pollution instead of fighting the only program in the world dealing with this challenge.  After all, the EU program allows plenty of flexibility to carriers and allows country’s to develop an equivalent system at home. 

Now is the time to reduce pollution, not strip pollution controls.

But before giving some detail on the results here is a little perspective on the EIA’s analytical track record.  First, EIA’s projections of energy use and emissions have been reduced each time a new analysis is released since their earlier projections had overestimated the growth in emissions (as my colleague highlighted).  This isn’t because they are bad analysts.  It is just hard to predict future energy use in an ever changing world and they don’t want to be perceived as radicals (so their analysis tends to be conservative).  [Note: the same could also be said of the International Energy Agency.]  Second, EIA projections are based on the “policies on the books”.  Their “reference case” analysis “generally assumes that current laws and regulations affecting the energy sector remain unchanged throughout the projection.”  So their reference case doesn’t include policies that are under consideration and that might be adopted by the President, Congress, or the states.  Nor does this scenario consider new rules that might be implemented under existing law.  Lastly, predicting future changes in technology development and costs is a complicated undertaking so EIA uses assumptions about how technology will change in the future.  Remember how you first used your email or the internet?  Think you could predict 5, 10, or 20 years later that you could access it from your pocket and tell your friends what you were doing every second from that same device?   Similarly, capturing how energy technology will change in the future is difficult.  To capture all these dynamics, EIA includes “sensitivity analysis” which looks at the emissions and energy results from changes to these factors – e.g., new policies being implemented. 

With that in mind let’s look at some of the results from the new EIA projections.

Without any new policies, US energy-related CO2 emissions* will be below 2005 levels for the next 15 years.  In 2020, US emissions without new policies are projected to be 4% below 2005 levels and won’t surpass 2005 levels until 2027, according to EIA’s reference scenario (see figure).  This reflects the adoption of no new policies, but does include recent existing policies such as the renewable and energy efficiency investments in the stimulus, the CO2 tailpipe and fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks through 2016 adopted by President Obama in early 2010, new appliance efficiency standards recently put into effect (see here, here, here, and here), state-level greenhouse gas programs such as the ones in California and the Northeast, state-level requirements that a certain portion of electricity is produced from renewable sources.  The scenario also includes increased use of natural gas in the electricity sector mostly as a result of tapping into shale gas, growing use of renewable technologies and fuels (partly as a result of the stimulus investments and the state level policies), and other general economic trends.

Implementation of additional policies under development would reduce emissions further.  The extension of existing policies (some technically expire at a certain date) combined with updating existing regulations as the current law requires would lead to further emissions reductions.  In the EIA’s “extended policies” scenario US energy-related CO2 emissions would be 5% below 2005 levels in 2020 and not rise above 2005 levels for the whole period that was analyzed – through 2035 (see figure).  This scenario includes: new vehicle standards for cars and light duty trucks for model years 2017-2025 (although EIA analyzed light-duty vehicle standards reaching  46 mpg in 2025, not the 60 mpg standard that is feasible and under consideration), the first-ever carbon pollution and fuel economy standards for medium and heavy trucks, updated appliance efficiency standards, and additional energy efficiency standards for a wider variety of appliances (such as those agreed here and here).  

EIA forecasts that essentially no new coal-fired power plants will be built even without additional policies.  In both the “reference” and “extended policy” cases, essentially no new coal-fired powered plants are built through 2035.  Without new policies overall coal capacity is expected to be lower in 2035 than it was in 2010.

Greenhouse gas performance standards for power plants and other big industries, as well as other air quality regulations required by law could also affect greenhouse gas emissions trends.  In considering the “extended policies” scenario, EIA didn’t include the greenhouse gas standards for America’s biggest carbon polluters as required under the existing Clean Air Act or the air quality rules that the Administration is legally required to adopt (see for example here and here).  These could have impacts on the investment decisions of many companies and thus emissions.  The specifications of these rules are currently under development so their exact impact on emissions isn’t known at thi
s time.  But stay tuned.

Emissions could be significantly lowered if the Administration implemented EPA and other rules in a strong fashion.  While US emissions are expected to be on a downward trajectory without new rules, emissions could be lowered even further if the new rules for power plants, vehicles, and other big emitters are effectively implemented.      

——————————-

* Energy-related CO2 emissions account for over 80% of US economy-wide emissions, so this analysis doesn’t fully capture trends in economy-wide US emissions.  However the other sources of emissions have generally been declining –by 3% for the period 2000-2009.  In addition, U.S. forests, agricultural lands, etc have been a net “sink” – they have sequestered more emissions than they emitted.  For example, in 2009 these categories sequestered 1,015 MMTCO2 – equivalent to 18% of US emissions.

“When it comes to the protection of our planetary home, failure is not an option.  We have no choice but to try to assure that the Earth Summit next year is truly historic and transformative and puts us on a road to a low carbon, greener and brighter future.”  

In preparation for this “race to Rio”, NRDC is launching a detailed set of actions that countries, companies, and citizens can commit to implement at the Earth Summit (more details here).  These are actions that will help protect the planet from the dangers of global warming, save citizens money, create jobs, and reduce pollution.  They aren’t new ideas, nor are they innovative.  They are steps that some governments around the world are beginning to implement.  And they are steps that can be taken now. 

So what we need at the Earth Summit next year is for more countries and companies to come to Rio and commit to implement these specific steps.  And for countries that have already committed to these actions, we need clear commitments for how quickly they will be implemented.  As the recent carbon pollution figures show us, we can’t wait until 2020 for countries to take action.  We need implementation now in order to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.  

While the climate negotiations will continue, governments, companies, and civil society groups should come to the Earth Summit prepared to take tangible steps towards greater deployment of low-carbon energy technologies, improved energy and water efficiency, reduced deforestation emissions, reduced black carbon emissions, and the stimulation of low-carbon economies by implementing these critical steps:

1. Actively phase out fuel subsidies, following the binding commitments already made by G-20 countries
2. Develop and enforce best practice and minimum performance energy and water standards for appliances and equipment and ensure an ongoing process to develop all cost effective standards by 2015
3. Phase out inefficient light bulbs through the establishment of minimum energy efficiency standards that reduce energy use of new bulbs by at least 65%
4. Deploy renewable energy by countries undertaking specific commitments and programs to speed up the deployment of clean energy throughout the world
5. Promote clean and efficient vehicles that will cut greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles by 30% by 2020 and by 50% by 2030, including policies, programs and standards adopted by individual countries that address sales and use of new, and where appropriate, imported and/or used vehicles
6. Stimulate a market for clean cook stoves and invest in the efficient production of biomass fuels, with the goal of having clean and efficient stoves in 100 million homes by 2020 and thereby minimizing incidence of respiratory illnesses; deforestation; and destruction of local habitats
7. Replace polluting, inefficient, expensive, dangerous and unhealthy kerosene-based lighting with cleaner alternatives, such as solar lanterns.
8. Phase down HFCs by governments adopting new commitments covering these super greenhouse gases under the Montreal Protocol  and by companies agreeing to phase down their use in products that they produce, use, or sell
9. Reduce deforestation emissions by key corporations committing to avoiding purchasing products that cause deforestation, such as soy or cattle from deforested lands in the Brazilian Amazon, palm oil from deforested agricultural land in Indonesia, or illegal wood and wood products throughout the world
10. Undertake large-scale, environmentally and socially responsible reforestation efforts
11. Strengthen and increase the use of green building technologies and standards by working with the new GLOBE Alliance
12. Phase out lending by public and private financial institutions for energy projects with high GHG emissions
13. Create and enforce standards to reduce environmental risks associated with natural gas development, including the use of “fracking” to access natural gas
14. Commit to systematically evaluating, and where cost-effective, applying ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation (e.g., rehabilitating mangroves may be more cost-effective against storm surge than building a sea wall).

These steps by themselves aren’t sufficient to address global warming, but by taking these steps countries will show that they are serious in their commitments to address global warming and deploy clean energy.  After all, these are very reasonable and effective steps.

So while Rio is a beautiful city to visit, world leaders and the CEOs of major companies should only attend if they are prepared to implement these steps in their country and their products.  Otherwise they should stay home and explain to their citizens and consumers why they won’t implement these very reasonable actions to protect their children and grandchildren’s future.

Nothing short of this is sufficient for world leaders as they come to the next Earth Summit in 2012.

When the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to reauthorize the FAA  they included a provision (H.R. 658, sec. 511) which would seek to undermine Europe’s efforts to control carbon pollution from aircraft that land and take-off in Europe.  When the Senate passed its FAA reauthorization bill (S.233) they didn’t include such a provision and it appears that such language was never considered or debated.  But now the two bills must be reconciled and there is the possibility that the Senate will agree to include the language in the final bill.

The EU’s program – the Aviation Directive – is well within the requirements of international law.  Independent assessments have concluded that the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation in the EU’s program: “is consistent with all relevant international provisions and therefore permissible under international law”.  All flights to and from Europe are subject to the same requirements to reduce pollution – they don’t discriminate between European, US, Chinese, or other carriers.  This is important because international law related to aviation requires that you apply a common standard to all flights that use your airports.  So each plane that uses European airports has to comply with European law – a very common requirement for companies operating in another country.  

The program requires very reasonable pollution reductions.  The aviation sector is a major source of the world’s carbon pollution – accounting for more emissions than the entire United Kingdom.  And left unregulated, aviation emissions are on pace to quadruple by 2050 (see figure).  The EU program requires a 3% emissions reduction (compared to a 2004-2006 baseline) by 2013, and a 5% reduction by 2020.  Given the needed pollution reductions to address global warming this is a very modest cut in pollution.  It also provides airlines with several avenues to meet their targets.  And flights arriving from countries with equivalent programs are exempted from the requirements.  So any country that undertakes similar binding cuts in aviation emissions through their domestic law would be able to have their flights excluded.

US companies are already competing to produce better airplanes.  US-based aircraft and engine manufacturers are already making strides to produce more efficient airplanes.  Boeing characterizes its 787 as having “unmatched fuel efficiency” and using “20 percent less fuel for comparable missions than today’s similarly sized airplane.”  And Time Magazine just included an article highlighting Connecticut based Pratt & Whitney’s new engine: “that promises a 16% better fuel burn and carbon emissions.”  The European program would encourage airlines throughout the world to purchases these more efficient aircraft and engines that US-based companies are already producing.  This would help create US manufacturing jobs, while saving consumers money as the airlines spend less on fuel costs.  

So why would Congress consider a provision that would send a signal of unease about the steps another country is taking to reduce carbon pollution?  Especially at a time when it failed to pass a climate bill that would have addressed aviation’s emissions in essentially the same manner as the European program.  Unfortunately, we don’t know why Congress would include such a provision as there has not been a debate on this language.  The fate of this provision rests in the hands of a small group of Senators negotiating the final compromise bill with the House.  Let’s hope they do the right thing and drop this language.

——————-

Here is the full text of the ill-conceived House language in the FAA reauthorization (HR 658):

SEC. 511. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that–

             (1) the European Union directive extending the European Union’s emissions trading proposal to international civil aviation without working through the International Civil Aviation Organization (in this section referred to as the `ICAO’) in a consensus-based fashion is inconsistent with the Convention on International Civil Aviation, completed in Chicago on December 7, 1944 (TIAS 1591; commonly known as the `Chicago Convention’), and other relevant air services agreements and antithetical to building international cooperation to address effectively the problem of greenhouse gas emissions by aircraft engaged in international civil aviation;

             (2) the European Union and its member states should instead work with other contracting states of ICAO to develop a consensual approach to addressing aircraft greenhouse gas emissions through ICAO; and

             (3) officials the United States Government, and particularly the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, should use all political, diplomatic, and legal tools at the disposal of the United States to ensure that the European Union’s emissions trading scheme is not applied to aircraft registered by the United States or the operators of those aircraft, including the mandates that United States carriers provide emissions data to and purchase emissions allowances from or surrender emissions allowances to the European Union Member States.

This assessment couldn’t come at a more critical time as deforestation rates in Brazil have recently gone from significant decreases to rapid increases, Indonesia has just instituted a moratorium on new forest and peatland conversion, and countries around the world are contributing resources to assist developing countries in reducing their deforestation.  Let’s hope that the US and other countries continue to support the critical efforts to halt deforestation.

Here is more detail on the new map from the NASA release:

New NASA Map Reveals Tropical Forest Carbon Storage

May 31, 2011

PASADENA, Calif. – A NASA-led research team has used a variety of NASA satellite data to create the most precise map ever produced depicting the amount and location of carbon stored in Earth’s tropical forests. The data are expected to provide a baseline for ongoing carbon monitoring and research and serve as a useful resource for managing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

The new map, created from ground- and space-based data, shows, for the first time, the distribution of carbon stored in forests across more than 75 tropical countries. Most of that carbon is stored in the extensive forests of Latin America.

“This is a benchmark map that can be used as a basis for comparison in the future when the forest cover and its carbon stock change,” said Sassan Saatchi of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who led the research. “The map shows not only the amount of carbon stored in the forest, but also the accuracy of the estimate.” The study was published May 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Deforestation and forest degradation contribute 15 to 20 percent of global carbon emissions, and most of that contribution comes from tropical regions. Tropical forests store large amounts of carbon in the wood and roots of their trees. When the trees are cut and decompose or are burned, the carbon is released to the atmosphere.

Previous studies had estimated the carbon stored in forests on local and large scales within a single continent, but there existed no systematic way of looking at all tropical forests. To measure the size of the trees, scientists typically use a ground-based technique, which gives a good estimate of how much carbon they contain. But this technique is limited because the structure of the forest is extremely variable, and the number of ground sites is very limited.

To arrive at a carbon map that spans three continents, the team used data from the Geoscience Laser Altimeter System lidar on NASA’s ICESat satellite. The researchers looked at information on the height of treetops from more than 3 million measurements. With the help of corresponding ground data, they calculated the amount of above-ground biomass and thus, the amount of carbon it contained.

The team then extrapolated these data over the varying landscape to produce a seamless map, using NASA imagery from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument on NASA’s Terra spacecraft, the QuikScat scatterometer satellite and the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission.

The map reveals that in the early 2000s, forests in the 75 tropical countries studied contained 247 billion tons of carbon. For perspective, about 10 billion tons of carbon is released annually to the atmosphere from combined fossil fuel burning and land use changes.

The researchers found that forests in Latin America hold 49 percent of the carbon in the world’s tropical forests. For example, Brazil’s carbon stock alone, at 61 billion tons, almost equals all of the carbon stock in sub-Saharan Africa, at 62 billion tons.

“These patterns of carbon storage, which we really didn’t know before, depend on climate, soil, topography and the history of human or natural disturbance of the forests,” Saatchi said. “Areas often impacted by disturbance, human or natural, have lower carbon storage.”

The carbon numbers, along with information about the uncertainty of the measurements, are important for countries planning to participate in the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) program. REDD+ is an international effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests. It offers incentives for countries to preserve their forestland in the interest of reducing carbon emissions and investing in low-carbon paths of development.

The map also provides a better indication of the health and longevity of forests and how they contribute to the global carbon cycle and overall functioning of the Earth system. The next step in Saatchi’s research is to compare the carbon map with satellite observations of deforestation to identify source locations of carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere.

In the letter, NRDC, Environmental Defense Fund, Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, Environment America, and the Sierra Club urged the airlines to “drop the lawsuit, and join the future of low-carbon aviation by making your actions consistent with your words” (see American Airlines letter and United/Continental Airlines letter).  In addition to the letter, the Environmental Defense Fund has asked the airlines to run an ad in their in-flight magazines (the ones in the seat pocket) that urge the airlines to start flying cleaner.

The companies recently each touted their environmental responsibility while at the same time bringing a lawsuit in the European Court of Justice against the European Union’s efforts to reduce carbon pollution from aviation.  American Airlines claimed that it:

“is committed to identifying and implementing programs to reduce our environmental impact”. 

United and Continental claimed in their Eco-Skies campaign that:

“At United Continental Holdings, we are committed to leading commercial aviation as an environmentally responsible company by taking actions today that shape an environmentally sustainable future, while continuing to comply with applicable laws and regulations.”   

That sounds hypocritical to me.  After all, aviation is a major source of the carbon pollution that is causing global warming and its emissions are rapidly increasing – projected to grow 3-4 percent per year.  Since 1997 there have been global negotiations to try to craft a strategy to address aviation’s global warming pollution.  After years and years of waiting for that solution to be agreed the European’s got frustrated with the pace of the discussions, so they took the reasonable step to implement a program at home.  After all, that is a position that the US has argued should be a cornerstone of global efforts to address global warming – key countries taking action at home. 

The EU’s program would require that all airlines flying to and from Europe reduce their carbon pollution.  It is the law of the land in Europe and will go into effect in 2012 for all airlines that take off or land in Europe.  It is a reasonable, modest, and critical effort to begin to address this uncontrolled source of carbon pollution.  So the claims of American, Continental, and United just don’t stand up.  And if successful, their lawsuit would undermine common-sense programs to address the major environmental threat of this decade – global warming.  That isn’t environmental protection…that is path to environmental destruction.

So American, Continental, and United airlines it is time to turn your green claims into real green actions.  Drop the lawsuit, comply with the law, and reduce your carbon pollution.

———————-

EDF has a good blog with more details.