Here is why this is so critical and why important progress can be made at Rio+20.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is releasing a new report — Delivering on Renewable Energy Around the World — which shows the progress of each of the G20 countries since 2002.  The report concludes that significant progress has been made since 2002 – when countries last met for an Earth Summit – but much more needs to be done. When leaders meet in Rio they can help unleash the potential of renewable electricity.

Some countries are rising to the top. As of 2011, the European Union (E.U.) has the most electricity produced from these sources, with Germany the most out of the G20 countries.  Other countries like the U.S., China, Mexico, and Brazil lag behind.  While all these countries have made important progress since 2002 they are still significantly behind other countries like New Zealand, Spain, Portugal, and Iceland (see map).

http://cdn.api.imapbuilder.net/1.0/imapbuilder/loader.swf

These rising trends are showing up in the investment in clean energy in each of these G20 countries.  Since 2002, the G20 countries have cumulatively invested over $860 billion in clean energy, according to data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The majority of this investment has occurred in the E.U. ($291 billion), followed by the U.S. ($215 billion), China ($197 billion), Brazil ($52 billion), and India ($40 billion).

Progress since 2002, but not fast enough. Even with this important progress, the G20 countries aren’t on track to triple the amount of electricity produced from these sources.  On current trends, the G20 countries are on a trajectory to produce less than 4 percent of their electricity from these sources by 2015 and less than 6 percent in 2020.  So they have their work cut out to take these investments to the next level (see figure).

Countries can unleash even more at Rio+20. At the Earth Summit 2012, civic and corporate stakeholders must commit to do more to increase electricity production from renewable sources. While a global agreement to spur this deployment is certainly helpful, it is more important that these key actors come to Rio with individual commitments to increase the amount of wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and wave power throughout the world to 15 percent of total electricity by 2020—more than doubling what is predicted under current trends.

1. Targeted, short-term individual commitments that entail specific new laws, programs, and incentives that will enable them to meet their existing pledges, or details on new actions that they will implement with clear plans through 2015 at the latest. For example, countries could commit to passing laws to ensure that 15 percent of their electricity is produced from these renewable sources. Or, companies could commit to invest a certain amount of money in this effort.
2. Commitments to work together, where appropriate, including sharing technical assistance and coordinating actions. These efforts should include a group of likeminded countries, companies, and Non-Government Organizations that commit to implement the necessary steps to close the gap between the current trend and the 15 percent target. These entities must commit to follow through so that Rio is not simply a one-off event.
3. Provisions for monitoring and reporting to ensure that the commitments are delivered on the ground. These should entail specific timelines for each action and clear metrics for determining success.

Will these countries deliver on renewable electricity? With around one week before heads of government, CEOs, and other leaders arrive in Rio it is essential that they don’t arrive with an empty suitcase.  They better arrive with real commitments that help take renewable electricity to the next level.

* This report was co-written with Aaron Haifly, an intern with NRDC.

** Map produced by Philip Goo, NRDC.

All the Democrats voted no, one Republican voted no, two Democrats and one Republicans didn’t attend.  For the list of Members that deserve thanks and which ones should go on the wall of shame see below.*

The Lacey Act is a critical tool in combating global deforestation.  The premise behind the amendment to the Lacey Act is pretty straightforward – it is illegal to import and trade in illegal timber.  Companies importing wood and wood products into the U.S. must verify that they are buying that material from legal sources.  So if a company imports wood from Brazil that wood must be cut, produced, manufactured, etc according to Brazilian law or it would be deemed illegal according to the Lacey Act.

The Lacey Act doesn’t cover every law in the exporting country.  The Act’s specific language, and legal precedent (this Act has a 111 year old track record), focus on “conservation” laws.  The law is also based on the premise that importing companies need to ensure that their supply chain meets the requirements of the Act.  So if you are IKEA, Home Depot, WalMart, or a maker of musical instruments that imports wood and wood products into the U.S. you must take the necessary steps to ensure that your suppliers are complying with the law in the country where the wood is sourced.  That is just common sense as no company wants to encourage illegal activity.

Bill that passed would gut the Lacey Act.  The Committee voted on a bill from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), and Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) – the RELIEF ACT – as amended by Rep. Flemming (R-LA). [Here is analysis of the implications of the RELIEF Act.]

The bill that passed would allow illegal loggers to keep their ill begotten gains, would eliminate the requirements of the Lacey Act for “non-solid woods” (e.g., pulp and paper) which is one the main sources of illegal logging, and would strip down what conservation laws would be subject to the law.  Despite the claims of its proponents, this modified version would still gut the Lacey Act.

Despite claims that the bill is aimed at protecting American business and not supportive of illegal loggers, the Republicans (with the exception of one) also voted against two amendments offered by the Democrats.  The first amendment (offered by Rep. Markey) would have restricted imports from countries that engage in drug trafficking, trafficking of people,and are state sponsors of terrorism.  Illegal loggers are often closely tied to illegal drugs, slavery and child labor, and terrorism so this amendment would have ensured that imported wood doesn’t support these activities. The second amendment (offered by Rep. Garamendi) would not have the RELIEF Act go into effect if the Secretary of Interior and the Governors of timber producing states certify that the RELIEF Act is “negatively impacting employment” in the U.S. timber industry. Since the Lacey Act protects American workers against illegal activity, this amendment would have ensured that the RELIEF Act didn’t lead to job loss in the timber industry.

There is strong opposition to this bill from a diverse group of environmental, conservation, timber industry, labor unions, wood product users, and musicians.  While Representatives Flemming and Cooper claim that the RELIEF Act as amended by Flemming would address the concerns of environmental, industry, labor, and conservation groups that opposed the RELIEF Act, that is flat out not true.  More than 50 forest industry and wood product using companies stated in their letter of opposition to RELIEF and the Flemming Amendment:

“Illegal logging and the threat posed to U.S. jobs and forest resources by illegally sourced products throughout the world is being addressed by the Lacey Act, allowing our industry to compete fairly in the international market.  Please oppose H.R. 3210 (The RELIEF Act), H.R. 4171 (The FOCUS Act), the Fleming amendment to H.R. 3210, and other amendments that weaken and undermine the Lacey Act.”

And as 36 leading environmental, conservation, and labor groups stated:

“On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we urge you to oppose H.R. 4171: The Freedom from Over-Criminalization and Unjust Seizures Act of 2012 (FOCUS Act), and H.R. 3210: The Retailers and Entertainers Lacey Implementation and Enforcement Fairness Act (RELIEF Act), as well as any other amendments under consideration that would undermine the Lacey Act.”

Groups opposing include (for full list see: opposition letters from forest industry; environmental conservation, and labor groups; and musicians):

• environmental and conservation organizations: NRDC, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund, League of Conservation Voters, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network, The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Investigation Agency, 350.org, National Wildlife Federation, Union of Concerned Scientists);
• timber industry: over 50 leaders, including American Forest and Paper Association, Hardwood Federation, International Paper, Plum Creek Timber Co., and National Wood Flooring Association, etc.;
• labor unions: United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW), which represents the pulp and paper labor union, and the Blue Green Alliance);
• wood product users: Anderson Hardwood Floors, Maxwell Hardwood Flooring, Emporium Hardwoods, Shaw Industries Group, United States Green Building Council and Sound & Fair; and
• musicians:  Mick Jagger, Sting, Dave Matthews Band, Jack Johnson, Willie Nelson, Lenny Kravitz, David Crosby, Sarah McLachlan, Barenaked Ladies, Bonnie Raitt, and Bob Weir.

It is time to stand up against illegal logging and for American business, musicians that want instruments that are untainted, American workers, companies that want legal wood, and communities around the world devastated by deforestation.  This bill would severely undermine this critical law at a time when important progress is being made on addressing illegal logging.

So Members of Congress, companies, and musicians: it is time to take a stand.  Are you for illegal logging or do you want to stand up the destruction from illegal logging? Tell your Member of Congress to stand up against illegal logging and vote NO on the RELIEF Act.

————————–

* Voting no on the bill to gut the Lacey Act: Representatives Dan Benishek (R-MI), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Dale Kildee (D-MI),  Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Grace F. Napolitano (D-CA), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-Guam), Jim Costa (D-CA), Dan Boren (D-OK), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Betty Sutton (D-OH), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico), John Garamendi (D-CA), Colleen Hanabusa (D-HI), Paul D. Tonko (D-NY).

* Voting yes on the bill to gut the Lacey Act: Doc Hastings (R-WA), Don Young (R-AK), John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Rob Bishop (R-UT), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Rob Wittman (R-VA), Paul C. Broun (R-GA), John Fleming (R-LA), Mike Coffman (R-CO), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Jeff Denham (R-CA), David Rivera (R-FL), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Scott Tipton (R-CO), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Raúl Labrador (R-ID), Kristi Noem (R-SD), Steve Southerland, II (R-FL), Bill Flores (R-TX), Andy Harris (R-MD), Jeff Landry (R-LA), Jon Runyan (R-NJ), Bill Johnson (R-OH), Mark Amodei (R-NV).

** Updated 6/7/12 with information on the amendments that were offered to make the RELIEF Act less destructive.

Image: Deforestation in Indonesia: courtesy of Rainforest Action Network under Creative Commons License.

This is a four-part post.  Part 1 focuses on the actions at that are happening at home in key countries and a couple of key issues to watch in these countries.  Part 2 considers the actions at Rio+20 that are essential for moving forward on global warming action.  Part 3—this post— 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”.

CLOSING THE “MITIGATION GAP”

Since Copenhagen, countries accounting for more than 80% of the world’s global warming pollution have come forward with commitments to reduce their pollution.  While this was important progress, a number of experts have concluded that there is a gap between these commitments and what the science says is needed to put the world on a safer path—this is the “mitigation gap” (see figure).

In Durban, countries recognized this gap and agreed to begin seriously negotiating on steps to “close the gap”.  This was out of recognition that failure to close this gap has serious implications, as Sai Navoti, the lead negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, recently stated to Reuters: “Failing to close the gap immediately will lead to significant risks across various tipping points and global average temperature exceeding 3.5 degrees”.

Countries started to outline some of the key options for “closing the gap” at the negotiations in Bonn (see workshop on “enhanced action”, part 1 and part 2.)  So here are some key actions that are poised for progress in 2012 that help to “close the gap”.

Phasing down the “super GHG” HFCs. Global emissions of Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are growing rapidly largely due to two factors: (1) countries are moving out of substances that deplete the ozone layer towards these replacement substances that have a “super” impact on global warming, and (2) due to the growth of air conditioners, refrigerators, and other technologies that use HFCs.  This growth is expected to increase rapidly (see figure).  If left uncontrolled, global emissions of HFCs in 2050 are projected to be the equivalent of 9 -19% of projected global CO2 emissions in business-as-usual scenarios and 28-45% of the emissions allowed under a global warming reduction pathway.  So phasing-down HFCs with a high impact on global warming is a critical step in slowing global warming.

Out of this concern two proposals have been put forward to phase-down these HFCs under the Montreal Protocol – the “North American Proposal” (from the U.S., Mexico, and Canada) and the “Micronesia Proposal” (from the Federated States of Micronesia).  Both of these proposals will make important contributions in reducing global warming and helping to “close the gap” (see figure). For example, the North American Proposal would achieve over 2 billion tons of carbon pollution reductions through 2020 and 88 billion tons through 2050.

More than 108 countries now support the effort to phase-down HFCs under the Montreal Protocol.  Unfortunately China and India have blocked this negotiation but they will have another chance to change their position when countries meet this July for the next round of the Montreal Protocol negotiations.

Reducing pollution from international transportation.  Left unregulated aviation’s carbon pollution is predicted to double by 2025 and quadruple by 2050, to levels that are unsustainable. As the E.U. recently said: “aviation could be a quarter of our total budget” [under a 2 degree Celsius global warming emissions budget].  Similar growing trends are predicted for shipping which is predicted to increase by 150–250% by 2050.

Spurred by the E.U.’s common-sense program and the ensuing controversy, the U.N. agency in charge of aviation (International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO) has restarted a long-dormant focus on designing a global system to reduce aviation’s carbon pollution.  Having witnessed first-hand for 5 years how slow ICAO can be I’ll reserve judgment on whether this new action will lead to anything real.  But since airplane manufacturers are already producing more efficient aircraft and many airlines are starting to explore the use of biofuels, turning these dynamics into a real global push for less aviation pollution is a “no brainer”.  So who is going to stand in the way of making the aviation sector more sustainable?  After all, even the airlines claim to want a global solution (although their proposed approach is too weak).

In the shipping sector countries recently agreed to clean up the carbon pollution from new ships when the U.N. agency in charge of shipping (the International Maritime Organization, IMO) adopted an “energy efficiency design index”.  This was important progress and will lead to real reductions in carbon pollution, but we need a program that covers the existing fleet as there is huge potential to rebuild the existing fleet to use more advanced technologies and practices.  IMO is currently considering various options to develop a “market-based approach” and a large portion of the shipping industry recently came out in support of such an approach.  Time will tell whether countries can rally around a common-sense global approach to address the carbon pollution from the shipping industry but making a dent in this growing pollution would help “close the mitigation gap”.

Reducing black carbon and methane to protect public health and the climate system.  Coupled with deep reductions in the carbon pollution from energy and deforestation, efforts to reduce global warming pollution from black carbon and methane could go a long way in helping address global warming.  In fact, implementing 14 measures aimed at reducing these “short-lived climate pollutants” could help reduce global temperatures by 0.5°C by 2050 (see figure) and prevent millions of cases of lung and heart disease by 2030.

And there are a number of very reasonable steps to help curb this pollution.  For example, we can clean up the global diesel fleet by combining ultra-low sulfur fuel and particulate soot filters that would eliminate more than 90-95% of the diesel soot and black carbon from these sources.  And since diesel is estimated to count for around one-quarter of the world’s black carbon emissions this would help to reduce global warming pollution, while saving lives.  Likewise, putting a stop to methane leaks from natural gas drilling and operation could help reduce global warming.  And we know how to take a big dent out of these emissions as NRDC just identified 10 technologies which could reduce methane pollution from natural gas by 80% in the U.S. – with similar results expected throughout the world.  These and other options to reduce black carbon and methane are ripe for the picking.    

ACTION TO “CLOSE THE GAP” IS RIPE FOR THE PICKING

With so many promising options ready for action, it is time for countries to rally around turning these “options” into actions.  Many of these options will save money, lives, and provide other sustainable development benefits.  A new coalition has formed to try and help unlock some of these actions – the Climate and Clean Air Coalition – which is a welcome development.  And there are many additional forums where countries can make significant progress this year in helping to “close the gap”.  Looking beyond 2012 there are additional actions which can be unlocked, including by countries deepening their actions as they’ll likely find that the steps they take can be strengthened.

So let’s begin to close the gap this year by picking the ripe fruit that is in front of our noses.

This piece was originally published at NRDC’s Switchboard.

———————-

Photo: “Mind the Gap” logo from Climate Action Network International; this is a variation of a sign found throughout the London subway system to note the gap between the platform and the train.

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.