Policy & Legislation
-
Obama Administration Moves to Slash Industrial Emissions
-
Browner: Climate Bill Unlikely By December; US Will Act One Way or Another
-
Gov't Fossil Fuel Subsidies More Than Twice Those to Clean Energy
Developing World Stands Up To Developed Nations
Published October 16, 2009 @ 11:00AM PT
I'm currently on the Greenpeace ship Esperanza in the South Pacific. We're on the Defending Our Pacific tour, which is a campaign to establish a global network of marine reserves, stop overfishing of Pacific fisheries, and support Pacific island nations efforts to stop Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing in their waters.
Crewman aboard the Japanese vessel Koyu Maru 3, fishing in Cook Islands waters illegally, haul a tuna onboard. Like climate change, overfishing of the world's fisheries is threatening the livelihood of developing countries who are not contributing significantly to the source of the problem. Image © Paul Hilton/Greenpeace
Last week, we caught the Japanese ship Koyu Maru 3 fishing in Cook Islands waters without a license, which is obviously illegal. When I blogged a bout it on the Greenpeace website, I made the point that this was not just illegal but also immoral. So why is it immoral?
Last week, a new study was released by The Commonwealth that underscores the drastic need for government action on overfishing and climate change in order to stave off a collapse of global fisheries. The report warns that the oceans could soon become “deserts” and goes on to say:
The study reveals that those least responsible for the state of the oceans are most likely to suffer the consequences of poor management and climate change. Small island states in particular are vulnerable to illegal and unfair fishing by foreign fleets and to migration of fish away from warming seas.
The Esperanza has been in the Pacific region since May to support Pacific Island countries on issues ranging from climate change to fisheries collapse and marine conservation. But of course Greenpeace’s history in the Pacific Ocean goes back much further than that — all the way back to the early 1970s when we were protesting the French nuclear blasts at Moruroa. The fallout from these blasts also disproportionately affected those Pacific islanders living downwind from the blast sites — another instance of those not responsible for a problem suffering the most. While there was nothing technically illegal about these blasts, the total disregard for human health and welfare is egregious.
The industrialized commercial fishing vessels that are literally stealing fish from Pacific island nations' waters is just another example of the developed world doing as they please and disregarding the well-being of the people affected by their actions. That's why it’s very encouraging that eight Pacific island nations have come together and are standing up for their rights against these invading international commercial fishing fleets.
Pacific island states are not the only developing nations that are banding together to force the developed world to live up to their other moral obligations: “Africa will demand billions of dollars in compensation from rich polluting nations at a UN climate summit for the harm caused by global warming on the continent, African officials said Sunday.”
Lest we doubt that there is any need for this stand by African nations, even the World Bank, generally no friend to the developing world, is warning of the threats those nations are facing as the climate crisis looms: “The World Bank estimates that the developing world will suffer about 80 percent of the damage of climate change despite accounting for only around one third of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
So the real question we must be asking ourselves is: Will the developed world stand up and do the right thing in regard to these moral obligations?
Cattle Industry Giants Agree to Protect the Amazon and the Climate
Published October 10, 2009 @ 10:15AM PT
A Greenpeace activist urges the President of Brazil to attend The UN climate meeting in Copenhagen. The presence of the Heads of States of the most influential countries are needed in order to secure an ambitious and legally binding agreement in Copenhagen in December, and measures to stop deforestation must absolutely be part of that agreement. ©Greenpeace/Johanna Hanno
Four giants of the cattle industry have agreed to stop supporting deforestation of the Amazon — and that’s huge news for the climate in addition to forests. Now we just need Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to get on board with the zero deforestation initiative as well, and take that pledge to Copenhagen.
I haven’t been writing my weekly guest blogs lately because I’m currently in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on the Greenpeace ship Esperanza as part of a campaign to stop overfishing and establish a global network of marine reserves, but I had to take a break to write about this tremendous victory.
I’ve reported here on this blog about the role tropical deforestation plays in contributing to climate change. To briefly summarize, deforestation is responsible for nearly 20% of global carbon emissions every year — more than the entire transportation sector. In other words, tackling global climate change means stopping deforestation.
I also wrote about Greenpeace’s campaign to urge major shoe manufacturers to put their foot down and tell their Brazilian suppliers that they would no longer purchase their leather until they could guarantee it wasn’t coming from destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Cattle ranchers are responsible for 80% of deforestation in the Amazon.
Obama Establishes Enviro, Energy Targets for Federal Government
Published October 05, 2009 @ 05:48PM PT
The Obama administration today ordered federal agencies to aim for aggressive targets to reduce energy use, and incorporate environmental sustainability in federal government operations.
The executive order "Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance," signed today by President Obama, builds off an executive order signed by President Bush in 2007, as well as momentum created by clean energy and energy-efficiency measures funded by the stimulus act.
Under this new mandate, federal agencies must set 10-year energy reduction and environmental sustainability goals within the next 90 days. Clearly identified targets in the order include:
- 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020;
- 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020;
- 50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015;
- 95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements;
- Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement;
- Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438; and
- Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Apple Quits Business Lobby Over Climate Opposition
Published October 05, 2009 @ 01:36PM PT
Today we iPod Touch addicts and MacBook users can claim one less guilt trip: Apple Computer has become the latest high-profile defection from the US Chamber of Commerce, over the group's opposition to curbing greenhouse gas pollution.
In a letter dated today, communicating the company's immediate resignation, Catherine A. Novelli, the vice-president of worldwide government affairs at Apple wrote, "We strongly object to the chamber's recent comments opposing the E.P.A.'s effort to limit greenhouse gases." Kate Galbraith at The New York Times' "Green Inc." blog snagged the letter and put it online:
As a company, we are working hard to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions by relying on renewable energy at our facilities and designing more energy-efficient products for our customers. We have undertaken this unilaterally and without government mandate, because we believe it is the right thing to do. For those companies who cannot or will not do the same, Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the Chamber at odds with us on this effort.
McCain's Gripe: Climate change bills don't include nuclear power
Published October 01, 2009 @ 04:25PM PT
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) used a morning yak with NBC's David Gregory to slam the Boxer-Kerry climate and energy bill, as well as the Waxman-Markey House bill that squeaked to passage in June, for not including nuclear energy in their mandates on "renewable," "clean" power.
Neither bill allows nuclear energy to count toward fulfilling mandated renewable energy generation goals, which arguably could dampen enthusiasm for nukes by states trying to meet these "renewable energy standards," or RES.
"It’s the left-wing environmental organizations that are not allowing us to move forward with nuclear power," groused the senator, at the "First Draft of History" forum sponsored by The Atlantic and the Aspen Institute.
Eight Responses to Senate Climate Change Bill
Published September 30, 2009 @ 11:38AM PT
Senators Boxer (D-Calif.) and Kerry (D-Mass.) unveiled the Senate version of a climate bill late this morning. Called the "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009," it's exciting some comment around the web even in these wee few hours since it went officially public.
Early impressions of the bill run the gamut from hope, to dismay, to pragmatic realpolitik:
Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica: "We commend Senators Boxer and Kerry for their dedication to combating the important problem of climate change but we cannot support a bill that fails to solve the problem. Overall the draft is riddled with loopholes and does not go far enough to protect the planet."
Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): "This bill will help curb climate change, strengthen our economy, and make our country more secure. It will help generate jobs, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and create a healthier future for all of us. And it will put Americans back to work, making our country the world leader in the green technologies that are driving growth in the global marketplace."
Senate climate bill stricter on emissions, Washington Times: "Sen. Inhofe, an opponent of the cap-and-trade plan, said Tuesday that the bill will almost certainly pass Mrs. Boxer's committee, which is dominated by Democrats who back the approach. But he said Democrats cannot yet muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster threat on the Senate floor without deals that address the concerns of individual senators."
Kerry 'convinced' climate bill has a shot, The Hill: "[Sen. John] Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and coauthor of the Senate climate bill -- along with Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) -- framed the need for the legislation as a national security issue...But after a razor-thin vote to get the climate bill out of the House, some observers have expected an even steeper uphill climb for the climate bill in the Senate, a charge Kerry rejected...The Massachusetts Democrat said it was 'no accident' that former generals and other national security experts would be on hand to support the climate bill ..."
Senate Climate Bill Will Aim at 20 Percent Greenhouse Gas Cuts by 2020
Published September 29, 2009 @ 03:31PM PT
The introduction of a Senate climate bill appears to still be on track for tomorrow. The measure will target a 20 percent emissions cut below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050 -- sharper than the House bill. It will also keep the price of carbon allowances at or below $28 per ton of carbon.
This and more from The Washington Post, which has posted what it calls a "close-to-final version of the bill." The legislation is still under revision, reports the Post, but "will make it easier for businesses to compensate for their carbon pollution by expanding the available pool of domestic offsets by 40 percent compared to the House-passed climate bill."
No specifics on how those allowances will be allocated, however; perhaps Sens. Kerry and Boxer are leaving that space open for the inevitable battle to come.
The bill will also contain provisions to protect the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas pollution -- recently targeted for elimination by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) -- as well as getting communities of 200,000 or greater population to work toward energy-efficient transportation, by undertaking planning for public transportation and bicycle paths.
