Andy Katz

2011-12-11T01:27:00.001-08:00

Durban Day 14:

Sierra Club statement on the Durban outcome

Sunday, December 11, 2011

The UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa today agreed to keep the world moving forward on climate change. The conference approved a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol and launched negotiations to adopt a new agreement with legal force covering all countries by 2015. The Durban package was agreed by
all countries including the United States.

These are welcome steps, but Durban only opens the door. The Durban package is necessary, but it is still far from sufficient. We need urgent action to keep global temperature rise below 2o C and address the increasing risks posed by extreme weather and many other climate change impacts.

The climate crisis requires a swift transition beyond coal and oil to a clean energy economy. The outcome in Durban supports that transition with the establishment of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which will grow over time to become the primary means for financing the clean energy future globally.

Now the ball is squarely in the US court to step up and help conclude a fair, ambitious and binding global climate agreement, and to deliver on our promises in the coming decade to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and help the rest of the world. That will require much greater commitment to emissions reduction, protection of forests and other lands, as well as adaptation to a rapidly changing climate.

Even at its best, the international process is slow. Given the urgency of the climate crisis it is critical that aggressive action be taken now to move the US and the world beyond coal and oil and toward a new clean energy economy.

2011-12-11T01:13:00.001-08:00

U.N. Climate Talks End With Deal for New Emissions Treaty

By JOHN M. BRODER
New York Times
Published: December 12, 2011

DURBAN, South Africa - Two weeks of contentious United Nations talks over climate change concluded Sunday morning with an agreement by more than 190 nations to work toward a future treaty that would require all countries to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming.

The result, coming as the sun rose after nearly 72 hours of continuous wrangling, marked a tentative but important step toward the dismantling of a 20-year-old system that requires advanced industrialized nations to cut emissions while allowing developing countries - including the economic powerhouses China, India and Brazil - to escape binding commitments.

The deal on a future treaty was the most contested element of a package of agreements that emerged from the extended talks here. The delegates also agreed on the creation of a fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change, and to measures involving the preservation of tropical forests and the development of clean-energy technology.

The European Union had pushed hard for what it called a "road map" to a new, legally binding treaty against fierce resistance from China and India, whose delegates argued passionately against it. They said that mandatory cuts would slow their growth and condemn millions to poverty.

"Am I to write a blank check and sign away the livelihoods and sustainability of 1.2 billion Indians, without even knowing what the E.U. 'road map' contains?" asked India's environment minister, Jayanthi Natarajan. "Please do not hold us hostage."

The deal renews the Kyoto Protocol, the fraying 1997 emissions agreement that sets different terms for advanced and developing countries, for several more years. But it also begins a process for replacing it with something that treats all nations equally. The expiration date of the protocol - 2017 or 2020 -- and the terms of any agreement that replaces it will be negotiated at future sessions of the governing body, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The United States never signed the Kyoto treaty because it did not accept its division of labor between developed and developing countries. Todd D. Stern, the chief American climate negotiator, said he was hopeful that negotiations in coming years would produce a more equitable arrangement.

The conclusion of the meeting was marked by exhaustion and explosions of temper, and the result was muddled and unsatisfying to many. Observers and delegates said that the actions taken at the meeting, while sufficient to keep the negotiating process alive, would not have a significant impact on climate change.

"While governments avoided disaster in Durban, they by no means responded adequately to the mounting threat of climate change," said Alden Meyer, director of policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The decisions adopted here fall well short of what is needed."

At U.N. climate talks, a last-minute deal

Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post
Saturday, Dec 10, 2011

Delegates to the U.N. climate talks adopted a significant agreement Sunday setting nations on a new path toward an international accord by 2015 to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The outcome of contentious negotiations taking place in Durban — punctuated by finger pointing among the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters and heckling by activists — reflected a fundamental shift in the geopolitics behind global environmental disputes.

Developing countries have long been a unified bloc, demanding that industrialized nations take most of the responsibility for cutting global greenhouse gas emissions. But faced with the fact that a handful of emerging economies — led by China and India — are helping drive carbon emissions to new heights, the world's smallest nations joined forces with the European Union to demand decisive action from their former allies as well as the United States.

The Durban agreement provides countries with the latitude to forge something that would apply to all nations, called an "agreed outcome with legal force," a last-minute compromise that creates a less stringent alternative to a traditional treaty. Several experts said such an agreement would be stronger than the voluntary accords reached last year in Cancun, Mexico.

Ned Helme, who heads the Washington-based Center for Clean Air Policy, said the provision means "it is enforceable and makes countries accountable. Of course, we know that international law is a lot less enforceable than domestic laws."

Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the agreement "important progress," adding, "this outcome brings large countries like China and India into the room to negotiate meaningful commitments to address the urgent need to cut global emissions."

This year's U.N. meeting took on greater significance because it comes as the world's only existing climate treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, is reaching the end of its first commitment period.

E.U. officials maintained that they would be willing to extend emission cuts under the Kyoto accord only if all the world's major emitters agreed to negotiate a new legally binding climate pact.

Connie Hedegaard, E.U. commissioner on climate action, who had characterized an earlier version of the package as too weak, said "an agreed outcome with legal force" is " a good and strong result."

Representatives of small nations, such as I.J. Karl Hood, Grenada's minister of foreign affairs, environment, foreign trade and export development, had endorsed the E.U.'s insistence on strong terms for the agreement. "We cannot allow countries to continue on the track which has brought us to this place," he said. ". . . While they develop, we die in the process. Madam Chair, why should we accept this? Why?"

Initially, India's minister for environment and forests, Jayanthi Natarajan, had fought for language to give developing countries such as hers more flexibility.

"This is not about India. This is about the world," she said. "Does climate change mean you give up equity? What is the problem with adding one more option? What is the problem?

But after saying she was unwilling to "sign away the rights of 1.2 billion people" for the sake of securing a global climate deal, Natarajan agreed to modify the provision.

While the United States had come under fierce criticism throughout the meeting because it objected to the idea of negotiating a legal treaty, by the end the Obama administration agreed to endorse a process aimed at securing a binding treaty or "legal instrument," a term slightly stronger than the actual final language.

Delegates to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were unanimous in calling for a cut in global greenhouse gas emissions before the end of the decade. But they remained divided until the very end on whether to stick with the historic framework — in which industrialized nations committed to binding cuts and financed voluntary actions by developing countries — or to forge a new one.

World events and new scientific and economic projection helped reshape nations' negotiating positions in Durban as delegates from the E.U. and the developing world alike said they could no longer afford delay.

Facing economic problems and unhappy voters at home, E.U. officials made it clear during the negotiations that they had no interest in accommodating the United States or China. Since 2009, the Obama administration has refused to make major concessions at the climate talks unless China accepts targets in an international treaty.

Though delegates did manage to sketch out details on how to administer money for poor countries affected by climate change and help transfer clean technology to developing nations, environmentalists said the Durban package still fell short of the ambitious cuts needed to avert dangerous warming.

New scientific findings have made it clear that any effort to curb emissions without meaningful cuts from major emerging economies will fail to keep the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). -UNFCCC delegates have pledged to limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, above which, scientists warn, there could be disastrous climate impacts.

Last month, the International Energy Agency projected the world was on a path to reach 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels by 2100. Last week, researchers from the Wilhelm Bjerknes Centre in Bergen, Norway, gave a presentation in Durban projecting that the Arctic will experience a 2-degree temperature increase within one to two decades. The only way to limit the global increase to 2 degrees, the researchers said, was to have global emissions peak by 2020 and fall between 40 percent and 50 percent between 2040 and 2050.

"That's the real missing element here," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "There's nothing that's going to get the world to lift its game and close that gap."

While some green groups were even harsher — Friends of the Earth International issued a release saying "the noise of corporate polluters has drowned out the voices of ordinary people in the ears of our leaders" — host country South Africa cheered the outcome. "We have indeed saved tomorrow today," said South Africa's foreign minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane.

2011-12-10T08:50:00.000-08:00

Durban: Day 13: Time Running Out

I’ve actually left Durban, and the negotiations are continuing with meetings at the Ministerial level, and an open session stocktaking beginning now (webcast). A new LCA text was released late morning, and the Parties are expected to convene later this afternoon or evening. (LCA is the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Collaborative Action, the negotiating track that includes all Parties).

Also, the Kyoto Protocol text hasn’t changed since last night – apparently it’s held until the LCA track is discussed, and conditions seem to be introduced that condition further ambition on developments in the LCA.

The basic elements of a deal are coming closer together, which include:

- A second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, to run from 2013-2017; this will be a two step-process with rules adopted now and pledges proposed in May 2012 and finalized in Doha, Quatar next December.

- A "mandate" to negotiate a new "legally binding instrument,” to be completed by 2015.

- Decisions to start the Green Climate Fund, the technology mechanism, the adaptation mechanism, and portions of the financial incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation (REDD), however actual funding pledges are unclear.

Some impressions from this version:

Legal Form and Mandate – This text is silent on the mandate and timeline for further negotiation, which are being held in the Indaba process. Indaba is a Zulu word, meaning a sort of “meeting of the elders,” and it’s been the forum for group consultations at the Ministerial level. The divergent politics on which countries can agree to a mandate or road map that is or isn’t legally binding has the potential to stall the structural and programmatic progress that appears to have been made in the other areas. Energy & Environment is reporting that the United States, India, and China are objecting to the stated goal of a binding agreement, but for different reasons. According to the article, the U.S. has direction from the Congress that a legally binding treaty is off the table without “legal symmetry” from all parties. On the other hand, India and China are inclined to defer the date that they could become bound by an agreement. At least one article suggests that the deal is off for now, with the time running out, delegates leaving, and the facilities taking the coffee machines away. The articles below, from Energy & Environment (E&E), reveals some of the politics.

Shared vision – General statement, agrees to continue work toward peaking and reducing emissions.

Mitigation – Reiterates 2 degree goal, and the need to consider in the first review strengthening to 1.5 degrees. Includes reporting process that will include disclosure of assumptions by base year, global warming potential (conversion of value for potent gases), coverage of sectors, land use/forestry, carbon credits from market mechanisms, and conditions associated with pledges. This could be a more robust annex compared to Copenhagen Accord/Cancun Agreements, because there will be more clarity when expressing reduction commitments.

Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification – Includes a International Assessment and Review, detailing the content of reports, and the investigation process, but leaves open the compliance process.

REDD/Deforestation Finance – Directs a process to consider finance for preventing emissions from deforestation, but no major substantive action inserted.

Market Mechanism – “Defines” a market mechanism, rather than “establishes” one here, before more procedures have been discussed. The mechanism as defined by the text operates under the guidance and authority of the COP, and also conditions the use of markets toward developed country targets or commitments, though this is to be elaborated. A separate paragraph emphasizes that credits “must” deliver “real, permanent, additional and verified mitigation outcomes,” “avoid double counting of effort,” and “achieve a net decrease and/or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Response Measures – Includes language on a just transition of the workforce and quality jobs. Urges developed countries to assist in economic diversification in the context of sustainable development.

Adaptation – Further structures the Adaptation Committee, including representation from a “small island developing state,” and a “least developed country.” The Committee is requested to continue workshops and reports over the next year.

Finance – Directs a work program for the Green Climate Fund Steering Committee to conduct, focused on developing a registry of projects and improved financial management for fast-start finance, options to mobilize resources for long-term finance, which include public and private, bilateral, and multilateral.

Technology – Directs the Climate Technology Centre and Network to conduct research, development, and demonstration of new climate-friendly technologies, and begins a selection process to select the host country. Funding to come from the financial mechanism, philanthropy, and the host country.

Capacity-building – Establishes an annual “Durban Forum” for a review of efforts, and links back to the financial mechanism.

Review – Confirms the first review starts in 2013, and should complete by 2015, to take into account the best available scientific information, and an assessment of actions taken by Parties, based on the forthcoming IPCC report and other sources.

______________________________________________________

Durban talks -- 'a pressure cooker' -- go down to the wire

Lisa Friedman, E&E reporter
Friday, December 9, 2011

DURBAN, South Africa -- Nervous energy filled the halls here as midnight loomed on the final night of U.N. climate talks, where activists and diplomats alike awaited the release of new text outlining how countries intend to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

At issue here in the tense final hours of the negotiations are both the future of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and what countries might be willing to do after 2020 to rein in emissions.

An "indaba" -- a Zulu word that loosely translates to a meeting of elders that the South African conference presidency has been using to describe smaller high-level meetings -- broke up around 9 p.m. local time after impassioned pleas for survival from vulnerable countries directed at the United States, as well as the so-called BASIC countries of Brazil, South Africa, India and China.

"We're here waiting for text and for some people to calm down," said David Waskow, climate policy director at Oxfam America. "It was a pressure cooker, from everything we've heard."

Small island nations and least developed countries are pushing for a mandate from Durban to develop a legally binding treaty that forces all major emitters -- including the United States and China -- to reduce emissions and to enact tougher emission reduction targets before 2020.

For different reasons, both the United States and the major emerging economies have put up roadblocks to deciding here in Durban that they plan to work toward a legally binding agreement.

The United States does not want to do anything until it can be sure that China and other major emitters are bound by the same legal rules as developed nations.

China and India, however, have their own set of conditions before they are legally bound to cut carbon -- including ensuring that they remain part of a protected category in which efforts to cut emissions are strictly voluntary.

A document that the United States, China and some others offered as a consensus option this afternoon -- calling for a new "legal framework" -- was rejected by small island nations and called toothless.

"We hear expressions of concern, yet some countries say they will not do anything until 2020. We see that as irresponsible," said Ian Fry, Tuvalu's lead negotiator. "For us this is a security issue, and we would need to consider this in the context of the [U.N.] Security Council."

Jennifer Haverkamp, who leads the Environmental Defense Fund's international policy team, said that in order for a package to work, countries need to agree to put something in force by or before 2020 and find a way to boost the current pledges for cutting emissions -- pledges that several studies have said are not sufficient to avert the worst impacts of global warming.

"In this negotiation right now, the U.S. has the opportunity -- if it can show more flexibility and ambition on the legal binding agreement -- at the end of the road, they hold in their hands the opportunity to make this a good outcome," Haverkamp said.

U.S. will be responsible if climate talks break down, top E.U. negotiator asserts

Jean Chemnick, E&E reporter

Published: Friday, December 9, 2011

DURBAN, South Africa -- If the U.N. Climate Conference ends today without an agreement -- throwing doubt on the future of climate negotiations -- the U.S. will be largely to blame, Europe's top climate change negotiator charged today.

"If there is no further movement from what I have seen until 4 o'clock this morning, then I must say I don't think there will be a deal in Durban," the European Union's commissioner for climate action Connie Hedegaard told reporters Friday morning, hours away from the end of the 17th Conference of the Parties.

"I think it's clear that the responsibility lies very, very heavily on the shoulders now of those few big ones who are still not giving in so much as for us to be able to agree what we need to agree," she continued.

The E.U. has spent the COP lobbying other countries to sign on to its so-called roadmap for action on emissions reduction, which would bind the E.U. and some other countries to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, while others, including the U.S. -- which is not covered by the protocol -- agree to negotiate a new, broader legally binding agreement for after 2020.

Europe has had some success. Yesterday a group of developing nations and small islands signed a joint statement with the E.U. declaring that they would be bound by the broader agreement.

"The price of buying time is rising. Durban must deliver," they concluded. "We urge others to join."

But others have not joined. China, India and the U.S. have remained in their entrenched positions.

Frustration builds during final hours

Hedegaard -- cutting the air with her arms as she spoke -- expressed frustration that major emitters had not softened their opposition to the roadmap despite numerous discussions over the past two weeks. The press has reported some movement from both China and the U.S. in the past week, but both have turned out to be misunderstandings.

The U.S. continues to demand that major developing emitters such as China and India agree to be bound by emissions targets before negotiations begin. Hedegaard noted that small developing nations, Brazil and South Africa have all said they will be bound by the broader treaty.

"We all know what the challenge in the United states is, but we also know that for many years it has been an American ask that we should all be equally legally bound," she said.

But Andrew Light, director of the international climate program for the Washington-based Center for American Progress, said that the E.U. delegation is actually divided on how much they need to see at Durban before the union can sign on to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.

He said that senior E.U. negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger has said in negotiations that beginning a discussion might be enough -- the U.S. and other countries may not need to spell out that they will accept binding targets after 2020 at the outset, he said.

'A lot of blame to go around'

"Connie seems to me to be pushing the strongest possible interpretation of the outcome they are looking for -- that whatever they can agree to on the roadmap, it must become legally binding," he said. "I couldn't say whether there is disagreement on the goal post among the E.U. negotiators but Artur's analogy for what they want makes this all seem more palatable."

He added that assigning the U.S. blame in advance if the process fails to yield an agreement tonight is unproductive. It is equally true to say that the E.U. caused that failure, because it, too, entered the talks with preconditions.

"It would be causally true that the meeting might fail because the E.U. refuses to extend the [Kyoto Protocol] because China, India and other parties refused to agree to the mandate they have asked by way of a 2020 mandate," he said.

"If the meeting fails -- which would mean that parties withhold their consent on all the other non-KP parts of the deal because the KP does not continue -- then the trigger won't be pulled by the U.S. or the E.U. but by developing countries who insist that the KP must continue," he said. " So, if the meeting fails then there will be a lot of blame to go around. "

The African delegation has made the preservation of the Kyoto Protocol the top priority for this COP, but its top negotiator took a somewhat more forgiving tone toward the big holdouts then Hedegaard did.

Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, the outgoing chairman of the African group of negotiators, said that countries who are able to make commitments should do so now, leaving open the door for others to follow in the future.

"We should encourage people to do what they can do," he said.

"I think we can come up with a comprehensive instrument that will take on board most of us," he said.

He called on the E.U. to "show virtuous leadership as they have in the past" and sign on to a second commitment period under Kyoto no matter what other major emitters do. But Hedegaard all but ruled that out during her press conference.

"If we are discussing options where people are telling us to ratify and rather today than tomorrow, but then in return we would get is that we start some kind of process to end no later then 2020, then I think everyone could see, that is not exactly a good deal," she said.

"It's not a balanced deal, but it is also a really, really poor deal from a climate perspective," she added.

2011-12-09T13:50:00.000-08:00

Durban Day 12: As the Clock Ticks, Will There Be Progress?
Thursday night, options for a big picture plan forward emerged, with a summary posted on the UNFCCC website, accompanied by a chart of the options and the outcome for the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period. Reuters reported earlier that support is growing for an EU plan to have a “road map” toward a new “climate change regime” by 2015, but the latest news is that this is being resisted by developing countries, favoring language such as a “binding instrument.”

This seems to be consistent with Options 2a, 2b, and 2c from the Ministerial talks last night. Also released at 4pm today was an 8am time-stamped document with text on the legal form of the roadmap. The draft text, among other nuances:

- Recognizes the need to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees, and includes language to consider strengthening the goal to 1.5 degrees.

- Notes the Kyoto Protocol and Cancun Agreements, and Decides to complete the outcome called for by the Bali Action Plan.

- Decides to launch a process to develop a legal framework that would apply to all under the UNFCCC through a new negotiating track.

- Sets a timeline ending no later than 2015 to complete the work.

- Decides that the process shall encourage increased ambition, and refers to a 2013-2015 review.
- A paragraph recognizing the challenge of implementation implies that the outcome might come into force after 2020.

The negotiations closed late tonight after the agenda was approved, to reconvene tomorrow morning. Looks like they’ll be going into overtime.

Update: The President released new draft text on negotiating timeline and road map/mandate, Green Climate Fund, and Kyoto Protocol.

The new road map text expands the mandate to either a new "protocol or another legal instrument." It also drops the language about "after 2020," and is silent on when an outcome would come into force.

Meetings may reconvene after 10am on Saturday.

2011-12-08T15:16:00.000-08:00

Youth Videos

The United States Youth put together a video with the message that it's too late to wait -

For the third year, since Copenhagen, youth organizations from the United States and China have also collaborated on a dialogue about our climate future. The debrief is here:

2011-12-08T13:35:00.000-08:00

Durban Day 11:

I’ve posted mostly on mitigation, including market mechanisms, and legal form.

Some notes and links to resources and information from news and different perspectives on some other issues that are important to the negotiations:

2^nd Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol –

China Daily – 2^nd Commitment Period Still Top Priority

Environmental Finance – Negotiators close in on second Kyoto commitmentperiod

Times – Deal in sight at COP 17 -

Green Climate Fund –

Policy points from Climate Action NetworkInternational -

Bloomberg – UN’s 100 Billion Green Climate Fund Stalled by U.S., SaudiArabia

Financial Times – Fears for global climate fund emerge

International Business Times – Ban Ki-mood Demands Action on GreenClimate Fund

Financial Times – Green climate fund delayed as dissent grows

Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) – Insights from the World Resources Institute

Forestry –

Climate Progress – REDD Eye: World Leaders Call for a Deforestation Dealin Durban, Progress is Steady but Slow.

Climate Action Network Tag: REDD

Climate Action Network Tag: LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change, andForestry)

Adaptation –

Bloomberg – UN Says Climate Talks Making Progress on Adaptation Measures

Durban Mayor Leads Signing of Durban Adaptation Charter for LocalGovernment Action

International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) CharterText -

World Resources Institute - Adaptation In COP17 Durban - OpportunitiesFor Clarity and Consolidation -

Technology Transfer – China Daily - Technology mechanism discussionhopeful to be completed

Capacity Building – UN Documents

2011-12-07T13:24:00.000-08:00

Durban Day 10: Picking Up the Pace
My blog post from today also ran in Sierra Club’s Compass blog: http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2011/12/cop-17-united-states-climate.html

The UN climate negotiations are winding up, with foreign ministers arriving. The negotiating tracks on the wide range of issues from mitigation, finance and the green climate fund, adaptation, and other issues are producing language that could result in an outcome in Durban that helps facilitate international collaboration on combating climate change, but the progress so far is slow and incomplete compared to the needed reductions to avert the catastrophic impacts of global climate change.

At the center of the debate is the commitments to reduce emissions, and how the Parties interpret the UN Framework Convention’slanguage of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” a principle that recognizes that developed countries such as the United States should bear a greater reduction responsibility than developing countries. Meanwhile, the United States bargaining position calls for “legal symmetry,” or an equivalent legal form of commitments, for agreement.

Sierra Club’s efforts to advocate for standards on clean cars and fuel, greenhouse gas standards from power plants, and other measures under EPA authority are likely enough to achieve the 14-17% if the Obama Administration can implement them, but we have to push beyond that, moving beyond coal and toward renewable energy. The science indicatesthat current pledges under the Cancun Agreements amount to global emissions of 55 billion tons of CO2 in 2020, which is 11 billion tons above meeting the 2 degree target. This level of emissions leaves us headed toward a temperature rise of 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees F) which will lead to extreme storms and heat events, damaged water and agricultural systems, sea level rise, and air quality and public health impacts.

U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern arrived for the second week of the climate talks, and briefed the environmental community Tuesday evening, acknowledging that there are no plans to expand the ambition of the current U.S. target of 14-17% reduction below 2005 levels by 2020, but expressing optimism that the outcome will include agreements on adaptation, technology transfer, and launch of the green climate fund. Although Sierra Club members and advocates from other organizations have repeatedly questioned the U.S. delegation on how the U.S. will work toward negotiating a pathway toward limiting climate change to 2 degrees Celsius, the commitments from the Administration seem held in place under the current Congress. While we need the U.S. and international community will come to an agreement in Durban on a pathway to stabilize the climate, we also need to double-down on our climate protection campaigns at home in the U.S.

2011-12-06T12:57:00.000-08:00

Durban Day 9: The Planet Warming, Pressure Building

Hand Puppet Hilarity: After a week of stalled negotiations, some humor is in order. This video using hand puppets does a pretty good job of capturing in a nutshell the state of play right now:

Environmental Organization CEO’s Letter to Secretary Clinton

Leaders of 16 environmental groups sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton with some tough words on the administration’s negotiating stance on the international climate talks now taking place in Durban, South Africa. “America risks being viewed not as a global leader on climate change, but as a major obstacle to progress,” they wrote. “U.S. positions on two major issues – the mandate for future negotiations and climate finance – threaten to impede in Durban the global cooperation so desperately needed to address the threat of climate change.”

Washington Post Story

LA Times Story

Senators Write to Clinton

Kerry, Colleagues on Durban International Climate Conference

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and long-time advocate for energy independence, today called for an “ambitious outcome” from the international climate negotiations currently convened in Durban, South Africa.

“With the impacts of climate change occurring more quickly than previously predicted, we are committed to doing our part to transition to a clean energy economy that decreases carbon pollution, creates jobs, and builds resilience in vulnerable communities both at home and abroad,” Kerry and 14 of his colleagues wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“COP 17 is an important opportunity for the global community to continue to make progress in implementing the Cancun Agreements reached last year in Mexico. There, for the first time, all major greenhouse gas emitting nations, agreed to anchor their commitments to reduce carbon pollution in an international agreement. Building on this, we look forward to an outcome in Durban that provides guidelines for how these actions are measured, reported and verified,” the members added.
During his time in the Senate, Kerry has traveled to seven international climate negotiations, including the first summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, followed by conferences in Kyoto, Buenos Aires, the Hague, Bali, Poznan, and most recently Copenhagen in 2009.

The full text of the letter is below:

December 5, 2011

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Madame Secretary:

We are writing to show our strong support for an ambitious outcome from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) summit in Durban, South Africa.

As host to this year’s 17^th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 17), South Africa plays an important role, not only as a principal forum for discussions on climate change, but also because it represents a region extremely vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Globally, climate change is projected to increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events like droughts. The consequences of these projected impacts can be seen in especially stark terms today in the Horn of Africa, where a major drought has left nearly thirteen million people in need of humanitarian assistance.

A changing climate will affect all aspects of our lives. The many weather-related disasters that occurred in 2011 also underscore the seriousness of climate science projections of increasingly severe floods, droughts, and other disasters. We are vulnerable in the United States, where a record fourteen disasters with greater than $1 billion in damages have occurred this year. But communities living in poverty that have done the least to cause the problem, like many in Africa, are particularly vulnerable and are least able to adapt to these changes without external assistance.

With the impacts of climate change occurring more quickly than previously predicted, we are committed to doing our part to transition to a clean energy economy that decreases carbon pollution, creates jobs, and builds resilience in vulnerable communities both at home and abroad.

In addition to taking action in the United States, we support a strong, coordinated international effort to advance these goals. COP 17 is an important opportunity for the global community to continue to make progress in implementing the Cancun Agreements reached last year in Mexico. There, for the first time, all major greenhouse gas emitting nations, agreed to anchor their commitments to reduce carbon pollution in an international agreement. Building on this, we look forward to an outcome in Durban that provides guidelines for how these actions are measured, reported and verified.

We also encourage the Administration to support innovative approaches to generate additional public and private sources of climate financing. To this end, we support an outcome in Durban that makes progress on contributions from other sources, including international transportation sectors and market mechanisms, and a process for determining how these sectors contribute to the long-term financing target. We also support establishing guidelines for the operation of the Green Climate Fund designed to maximize impact, effectiveness, and efficiency. The Fund should be transparent and accountable and ensure the meaningful participation of affected communities and civil society, while contributing to sustainable, vibrant local economies in developing countries through projects with environmental and social safeguards.

Finally, we look forward to an outcome that includes further discussions on the actions to ensure global temperatures do not rise beyond the two degrees Celsius target, with a review of its adequacy; progress on increasing the resilience of vulnerable developing countries; and strengthened efforts to increase forest conservation and reduce emissions from deforestation. We look forward to working with you to advance a strong and ambitious package of outcomes from Durban to address the global climate crisis. As the costs and effects of climate change continue to mount, it is critical that the U.S. be an active part of an effective global response.

Sincerely,

John Kerry Patrick Leahy Jeff Bingaman

United States Senator United States Senator United States Senator

Joe Lieberman Barbara Boxer Dick Durbin
United States Senator United States Senator United States Senator

Jack Reed Tom Carper Frank Lautenberg

United States Senator             United States Senator             United States Senator

Bernard Sanders                     Sheldon Whitehouse               Tom Udall
United States Senator             United States Senator             United States Senator

Chris Coons                            Ben Cardin                              Richard Blumenthal
United States Senator             United States Senator             United States Senator

Jeanne Shaheen

United States Senator

2011-12-05T12:54:00.000-08:00

Durban Day 8: To the (Real, Verified, Additional, Permanent) Market
In one of the areas that I’m tracking, called “various approaches, including the use of markets,” the document considers the establishment of a market mechanism to enhance greenhouse gas mitigation activities. The consensus-building process often starts at the lowest common denominator – the UNFCCC does not have an approved voting procedure, which means there must be consensus to proceed, although this doesn’t mean unanimity.

Parties raised concerns from all angles – Papua New Guinea, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, mostly developing countries), expressing frustration that the text didn’t unequivocally establish a market mechanism this year. Japan and India were concerned that establishing common standards on integrity at the UN level could restrict their access to credits and projects, Australia calling for environmental integrity in the system, but supportive of carbon markets overall, and Grenada insisting on safeguards for integrity, and that any trading be supplemental to domestic reductions. The U.S., while supporting the principle of credits being real, additional, permanent, and verifiable, prefers a work program to study these principles, so the Parties can consider establishing a framework next year.

In my discussions with environmental organizations, the U.S. negotiator for this issue, and officials at the California Air Resources Board, it’s apparent that California will have an important role to play in implementing a carbon market in a way that achieves a real decrease in emissions. With California as the first American carbon market aiming to link internationally, an important facet of California’s program is that most of the reductions, nearly 80 percent, come from direct regulations that clean up our cars, fuels, and energy generation, with cap-and-trade more as a “backstop.” Neither the climate nor the sustainability of an emissions trading system wins if there are credits that amount to double-counting, or that can’t be verified as a net decrease in emissions. However, a key challenge to is determining whether there is a “net decrease” without quantification of an emissions inventory where the clean development projects are taking place.

2011-12-04T21:51:00.000-08:00

Durban Day 7: Safari

The Sunday in between week 1 and week 2 is the only day off from the conference proceedings, so I went on safari at the Hluhluwe National Reserve. These two weeks are hard work, so it's great to take a day to explore and enjoy, as well as help protect the planet.

2011-12-02T12:38:00.000-08:00

Durban Day 6:

The amalgamation of draft text was released in the Long-Term Collaborative Action (LCA) track, setting up much discussion and reading over the next few days.

Saturday was also the Global Day of Action, with a 12,000 person march through the city of Durban for climate action.

More pictures here.

2011-12-02T12:30:00.000-08:00

Durban Day 5

Forward movement? On Friday of the first week, a China Daily news article raised some hope that mitigation commitments could be coming together. While China’s statement that they are contemplating an absolute emission limit, rather than a relative limit per unit of economic activity, helps to raise the ante, it wasn’t received as a certain development, as the target is conditional on economic development through 2020. Still, the provision in the newest 5-year plan to set a limit on coal production is a small step forward, although China consumes about 46 percent of the world’s coal.

Other topics under discussion today –

Keeping the Clean Development Mechanism Clean - Developing a grievance or appeals process for the Clean Development Mechanism – the emissions trading system in place for Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. Advocates have been concerned about approved projects that are not in fact additional to what would have otherwise occurred but for the credit received. The CDM approved a few coal energy projects before establishing a moratorium on credit for coal power plant. Advocates are pushing for this temporary moratorium to become established policy so that the trading system has environmental integrity.

Clearing Up The Hot Air – A flexible compliance mechanism is only as good as the rules that ensure the right balance between flexibility and integrity of the system. Advocates looking closely at the CDM have spot a series of loopholes negotiated in the process. They’re looking critically at

- Carry-over of overallocated AAUs (carbon credits) during the first commitment period.

- Problems with forestry accounting rules.

- Emission reduction projects that would have been built anyway (non-additional).

- Double counting emission reductions by attributing them to both developed and developing countries

- Emissions from aviation and shipping (“bunkers”), which are not accounted for in the Kyoto Protocol.

Page 6 of the UN Environmental Program Report on closingthe Emissions Gap suggests that the difference between lenient and strict rules can amount to 2 – 3 Gigatons of CO2e, or nearly 20 – 30 percent of the gap of emission reductions needed.

Links – Check out TckTckTck’s Hub on COP 17

and a post by their Adopt a Negotiator project’s U.S.Tracker

Sierra Club delegation blog

Sierra Student Coalition blog

2011-12-01T13:51:00.000-08:00

Durban Day 4: Legal Form: They Also Have to Agree on How to Agree

One of the most controvertial issues is the legal form of the outcome from the climate talks. While the popular understanding, and legal form with the greatest expectations of certainty and compliance, is a legally-binding treaty, several countries from different negotiating blocs have initially rejected this approach, broadening the discussion to a range of alternatives.

Today, I tracked the meeting where countries discussed a "menu" of legal options, first outlined in the Cancun Agreements, paragraph 145, and had drafted an intervention (like a public comment by an observer organization) that was presented by the Climate Action Network. Several countries weighed in on the options, which include:

1. Legally Binding Instrument(s)
2. COP (Conference of the Parties) Decisions
- Continue discussions to identify the appropriate form of the different elements of the agreed outcome.
- Mandate to conclude a legally binding instrument with a clear roadmap/main content.
- Affirm the importance of a legally binding outcome to provide clarity and vision.
- Statement/declaration regarding future instrument(s) leaving open the legal form.
- Continue substantively addressing all pillars of the Bali Action Plan through COP Decisions.

There's a saying that "if you're not confused, you're not paying attention." The 192 countries here are parties and observer states to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This framework convention sets common definitions and is a forum for the Parties to discuss approaches to addressing climate change. Under the convention, there's the Kyoto Protocol, in which 37 developed (Annex 1) countries have committed to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2012. This legally binding commitment ends next year, raising questions about what comes next.

At stake is the future of the instrument that is an actual legally binding treaty, but only covers 20 percent of global emissions. The Kyoto Protocol does not include commitments that apply to developing countries that are also considered emerging markets, such as China and India. In Copenhagen, countries agreed to a political agreement to pledge their emission reductions, and many "Annex II" countries that are not legally bound to commitments under the Kyoto Protocol agreed to reductions in the Copenhagen Accord, a political agreement that was not adopted by the UNFCCC, but was next detailed and adopted into the Cancun Agreements.

This system is a "pledge and review" approach, which has the advantage of including countries that the United States has wanted to see included in an agreement, but has the disadvantage of pledges that fall far short of what scientists say is necessary. Also at issue is the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities," a cornerstone principle of equity between developed and developing countries, but left with "constructive ambiguity," left open to interpretation and further disagreement about what this actually means. The Climate Action Network, the coalition of environmental organizations from around the world, is calling for a legally binding treaty by 2018, to coincide with the end of a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

The talks are continuing, with some Parties calling attention to the importance of certainty and trust from a legally binding treaty, and some Parties doubting the political feasibility of entering into binding commitments with ambitious targets, preferring first to achieve political commitments, and perhaps later codify into a treaty. While function follows form, here it may also be that the form is following function.

2011-11-30T12:19:00.000-08:00

Durban Day 3: An Extreme Warning, Negotiations Pick Up

The negotiations plenary opened with a statement from Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC publishes authoritative and comprehensive scientific reports to advise global decision-makers on climate science.
Global warming isn't just about the average temperature rising by several degrees. It's the extreme events that are particularly concerning. Some notable quotes:

It is very likely that the length, frequency and/or intensity of warm spells, or heat waves, will increase over most land areas. Based on specific emissions scenarios, a 1-in-20 year hottest day is likely to become a 1-in-2 year event by the end of the 21st century in most regions, except in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, where it is likely to become a 1-in-5 year event. The 1-in-20 year extreme daily maximum temperature (i.e., a value that was exceeded on average only once during the period 1981–2000) will likely increase by about 1°C to 3°C by mid-21st century and by about 2°C to 5°C by late-21st century, depending on the region and emissions scenario.

When I had the privilege of accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the IPCC I asked the rhetorical question, “Will those responsible for decisions in the field of climate change at the global level listen to the voice of science and knowledge, which is now loud and clear?

The United Nations Environment Programme released a report titled "The Emissions Gap," examining a range of emission reduction scenarios, including the scenario called for in the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements. The report concluded that there is a significant gap between scientific reality and the current level of ambition of nations.

Meanwhile, there was meaningful progress in the efforts to reduce emissions
from international use of bunker fuel in shipping. The Associated Press reported that the leading industry group is in agreement with Oxfam and the World Wildlife Fund on the guidelines for adopting a levy on bunker fuels, to be adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The pace of contact groups (like committees) picked up today, with meetings on issues ranging from:

- reforming the rules in the Clean Development Mechanism (carbon credit system in the Kyoto Protocol),
- a proposal to allow CDM (carbon offset) credit for carbon storage and sequestration projects, potentially including coal-fired power plants,
- considering a new carbon market system in the new Long-Term Collaborative Action (LCA) track in the negotiations (this track covers all parties, not just Parties to Kyoto Protocol),
- refining the reference points for crediting projects that prevent deforestation,
- reporting guidelines for annual inventories of emissions,
- financing clean development in developing countries,
- financing adaptation to climate change, and
- facilitating technology transfer.

I'll discuss some of these issues that I'm tracking and working on more in depth later this week.

2011-11-29T13:38:00.000-08:00

Durban: Day 2

53 Members of Congress Call on Obama Administration to Pursue Ambitious Agenda in Durban

Although this is last week's news, it's important that 53 members of Congress, including Oakland Representative Barbara Lee, wrote a letter to Secretaries Clinton and Geithner urging the Administration to pursue an ambitious agenda at the Durban Climate Change Summit. The letter focuses on the extreme weather events expected to intensify as a result of global warming, and calls for operationalizing the Green Climate Fund and reiterating the commitment made in Copenhagen to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

Maite Nkoana-Mashabane of South Africa, UNFCCC President

UNFCCC President Calls for Optimism

Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, President of the UNFCCC for COP 17, quoted Nelson Mandela, who said "It always seems impossible until it's done." This year's conference is anticipated to have a more uncertain outcome than ever before, with much at stake.
The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol is set to expire, with wide disagreement over what a second commitment period should look like. Japan and Canada are indicating that they cannot agree to further commitments unless major developing countries and the United States also commit to reductions. The United States is focused on implementation of the Green Climate Fund and other aspects of the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements, but is currently deferring negotiation of more ambitious targets until years in the future, in great part because of domestic dirty energy politics. Reciprocally, India says they won't agree to further reductions unless the U.S. does the same. India and China are calling for a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol. Europe will only continue for a second Kyoto commitment period if they are not the only countries carrying the load, particularly if the United States accepts reductions. Many African and small island states, with a low per-capita carbon footprint, are focused on survival, in anticipation of the devastating impacts of extreme heat and sea level rise on their countries.

Key issues include mitigation commitments, the legal form of any mandate (forms of either political agreement or binding treaty), the structure, priorities, and commitments of a new Green Climate Fund to assist developing countries achieve clean development, reducing deforestation, technology transfer and capacity building, the role and integrity of carbon markets to facilitate these goals, and adaptation.
Two common themes in the negotiations are (1) the ambition of commitments, but also (2) responsibility for acting to address climate change. The countries of the world are still far apart, but for the last two years have agreed on the crucial goal: to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

A highlight of my day was a briefing for United States Youth with Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change Jonathan Pershing. Although the briefing was an important opportunity to better understand and ask questions about the U.S. position on the issues, the situation is complex, and the answers were often not what we wanted to hear. I'm consistently inspired by the other young people who are actively engaging in the process, through both the long periods of slow progress, and the moments of breakthrough.

In tracking the negotiations, I'll be focusing on issues related to legal form and flexible / market mechanisms, cross-posting other news and views from the conference, and later this week I'll share South African sustainability exhibits on display outside the conference center.

2011-11-28T16:06:00.000-08:00

Durban - Day 1 - Will the World Act in Time?

The 17th Conference of the Parties (COP 17) began today in Durban, South Africa, where once again 192 countries are gathered for the next two weeks to consider how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avert the most serious impacts of climate change. The progress thus far has been too slow, and often with steps in the wrong direction. The International Energy Agency recently reaffirmed that without more ambitious commitments to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases over the next decade, that we are extremely unlikely to meet the goal set by President Obama and other leaders in Copenhagen of keeping global temperatures from increasing more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Canada announced today an intention to leave the Kyoto Protocol, the binding agreement that requires member developed countries to reduce agreed-upon emissions. There are also serious questions as to whether the negotiations will have a meaningful discussion toward a binding agreement to protect the climate, or the launch of the Green Climate Fund agreed to last year in Cancun.

Stay tuned for daily progress updates, in-depth discussion, links to information resources, and pictures.

Also, this is information about what the Sierra Club delegation is up to in Durban:

Today kicked off what will be a busy and exciting week for the Sierra Club's COP 17 delegation in Durban as we connect with partners fighting dangerous coal development around the globe, promote renewable energy solutions, work on climate finance and addressing gender issues, and build the international youth movement. Some members of the delegation even got a head start, arriving in Durban early for the Conference of Youthand Dirty Energy Week.

The Sierra Club will be on the front lines over the next two weeks as we:

• Partner with Greenpeace International on the "Coal, the Dirty Truth" side event inside the conference on Tuesday, November 29.

• Join the Carbon War Room and the Mary Robinson Foundation for a special event to discuss on energy access on Thursday, December 1.

• Participate in the Global Day of Action march in Durban with activists from around the world on Saturday, December 3.

• Present on the health impacts of deadly coal pollution at the Climate Health Summit with Health Care Without Harm on Sunday, December 4.

• Host a Move Beyond Coal workshop with groundWork South Africa on Monday, December 5.

• Discuss environmental and labor alliances as part of the Blue-Green panel at the World of Work Pavilion on Monday, December 5.

• Stage visibility events to highlight the dangers of coal and the need for action, including a funeral for coal and heads in the sands photo op.

• Hold the first ever Sierra Club booth inside the conference to discuss who we are and what we do during the second week.

• And much, much more! Stay tuned to thedelegation blog to get the latest info.

2011-04-07T19:38:00.000-07:00

Expand Lifeline Water Rates for Low-Income Families

Perhaps you’ve read about the painful cuts that will be hitting California’s low-income families hard in the next fiscal year. These are tough economic times, and our social safety net provided by state government is falling through. But we can make a small, but important difference in the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), which serves Oakland and most of the East Bay.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Board of Directors will decide on key budget matters at its meeting on April 12. One proposal includes closing critical gaps in the Customer Assistance Program (CAP). The CAP provides a 50% discount off the water bill for basic water use to households earning up to 165% of the federal poverty level: Households earning less than $24,000 for a household of 1-2, or $34,000 for a household of 4 are eligible.

This threshold is lower than California's electricity rate relief program, CARE, which covers households earning up to 214% of the federal poverty line, about 60% of the median income. The Customer Assistance Program also does not cover EBMUD's wastewater bill, which can be up to a third of charges that customers face.

Closing both of these gaps would only cost EBMUD an additional $450,000, a very small cost out of an annual operating budget of $450 million. Yet this would make a big difference for families earning a low income but are just out of range of our program – about 1% of a family’s annual income.

Please click here to write a personal message to the EBMUD Board of Directors urging the Board to close important gaps in the Customer Assistance Program to protect low-income households.

Andy Katz
Director, East Bay Municipal Utility District
Representing Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Kensington, and north Oakland

2010-12-10T15:42:00.001-08:00

Cancun Climate Talks Slow, but Steady

For the past week, I’ve been at the UN Climate Negotiations in Cancun, as part of the Sierra Club delegation. Today is the last official day of the conference, so I’m taking the time to reflect on my experiences and discuss how the negotiations were progressing.

Before I left, I already understood a tragic irony of holding the 16th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change here in Cancun. A well-known impact of global climate change is sea level rise, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finding a rise in sea level of 1-2 feet within the next 100 years, and recent evidence finding an accelerating rate of glacier melt that could cause sea level rise of over 6 feet. As I looked out east into the Gulf of Mexico from my shuttle bus, I was surrounded by the beauty of the coast and the waves flowing into the sand on the beach, hoping that there would be a commitment among world countries to protect our climate.

Over 600 million people live in coastal areas that are less than 10 meters above sea-level, and two thirds of the world’s cities with populations over five million are located in these at-risk areas. The EPA estimates 26,000 square kilometers of land lost if sea level rises by 2/3 of a meter, and 33% of coastal land and wetland habitats are likely to be under water.

That’s why the Sierra Club staged an event featuring 350.org founder Bill McKibben to pull the world’s heads from the sand. I’m glad to say this image carried in dozens of media outlets at the end of the first week of the conference.

The Road from Copenhagen

The Copenhagen Accord, while not the binding global climate deal hoped for, achieved several political agreements. It:

* Set a long-term goal of limiting global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees C
* Set forth a process for States to report their greenhouse gas reduction targets of both developed and developing countries
* Included financing plans including "fast start" money for 2010-2012 "approaching" 30 billion, and a goal of $100 billion per year by 2020.
* Provided for developed country monitoring, reporting, and verification, and developing countries to monitor emissions and report through national communications, with "international consultation and analysis."

However, the Copenhagen Accord didn't accomplish:

- A long term emissions reduction target. Early drafts included the 50 percent global reduction by 2050 (including 80 percent from developed countries) agreed to by the G-8.
- Pledges that add up to a path to the goal of limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees C. Rather, they may add up to a 3-4 degree rise in temperatures, requiring more ambitious pledges.
- Mitigation pledges that are legally binding, since the Copenhagen Accord is a political agreement, and the Conference of the Parties (COP) merely "took note of" it and did not "adopt" it as a decision.

Over the past two weeks, member groups of the Climate Action Network (CAN International) have been urging a fair, ambitious, and binding deal, including (1) stronger developed country emision reductions, (2) clear monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) and compliance system for developed country emissions, (3) agreeing to minimize loopholes that may remain in land use and forestry rules, and preventing double-counting in market mechanisms, (4) nationally appropriate mitigation actions for developing countries including MRV, (5) a Climate Fund to finance clean energy efforts, capacity building, technology development, and adaptation for the most vulnerable countries, and (6) clarity on the legal framework and path forward.

While the talks are progressing and a draft agreement moves many of these issues forward, the ambitious goal of binding targets from developed countries on the order of 25-40% is unlikely until the United States is ready to take action. The head of the U.S. delegation, Jonathan Pershing, has explained to environmental organizations that ratification by the U.S. Senate, and passage of climate and energy legislation are constraints of what the U.S. can agree to.

State and Local Actions Critical

Coming from California, it is clear that our Global Warming Solutions Act, which requires a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, is a bright spot of climate action in the United States, and therefore a ray of hope in the world.

We don't have time to wait for Congress to adopt climate legislation. At best, renewable energy incentives that started in the stimulus may stay alive for an additional year, but they were nearly removed. California is developing clean energy and energy efficiency programs that will reduce air pollution, protect public health, and create half a million jobs. California is developing new standards for cars and fuel that are key to the United States meeting its 17% by 2020 reduction target.

California voters strongly support climate protection, defeating Proposition 23 by 63% in the November 2010 election, and electing Governor-elect Jerry Brown, running on a clean energy jobs platform to get California working again.

Obama EPA Taking Action

The Obama Administration isn't waiting for Congress either, and has implemented the Clean Air Act to get started on achieving greenhouse gas pollution reductions. EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy outlined United States efforts since Copenhagen, including the first greenhouse gas standards for passenger vehicles, the first proposed greenhouse gas standards for medium and heavy-duty trucks, and the first year of collecting greenhouse gas emissions data under the mandatory reporting program.

The clean cars standards first adopted in California set an average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 mpg, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 950 million tons. A second phase to be proposed in Fall 2011 is evaluating more than 30 technologies to further reduce emissions during 2017-2025 to the equivalent of 47-62 mpg. The renewable fuel standard sets a goal of increasing renewable, low-carbon fuel to 36 billion gallons by 2022, reducing 138 million tons of CO2, replacing about 7 percent of expected annual gasoline. Additionally, new or modified stationary sources and power plants will need to adopt the most efficient technologies available to minimize emissions. This can help reduce unhealthy emissions from coal-fired power plants throughout the United States, preventing tens of thousands of premature deaths.

The Obama Administration's EPA actions are promosing, but cannot be taken for granted. Sierra Club's Bruce Niles wrote earlier this year about the importance of stopping the Murkowski Amendment, which would have eliminated the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and rejected the science supporting the EPA's endangerment finding that greenhouse gases endanger our health. Defending the EPA must remain a priority in addition to pushing for stronger action at the state and federal levels.

National Security Risks of Climate Change

USMC Brigadeer General Ayaha

The Department of Defense presented at the U.S. Center at the Conference on DOD's analysis of risks expeced due to Climate Change. R. Admiral David Titley noted that many coastal military installations will be vulnerable from sea level rise, melting ice in cold areas such as Alaska, and hotter weather in the southwest. Lt. Colonel Paul Schimpf and Marines Brigadeer General Juan Ayala also commented on the impacts of climate change and how destabilizing societies posing long-term security risks due to food and water shortages and mass migration.

2010-11-02T14:34:00.000-07:00

Re-Elect Andy Katz for EBMUD Board

As an East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Director, Andy Katz is leading efforts for sustainability and green jobs at EBMUD. He is focused on protecting our natural resources by increasing water conservation, protecting water quality, and increasing renewable energy projects.

Andy Katz won Board approval to expand water conservation programs and to double recycled water projects.

His leadership led to the development of the first food waste-to-energy digester in the United States, which composts our food scraps into renewable energy.

As Chair of Sierra Club California, Andy Katz has led efforts to support green jobs and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As your representative on the EBMUD Board, Andy will continue to:

• Protect water quality
• Expand green jobs and renewable energy
• Protect the Mokelumne River by ensuring water conservation
• Expand affordable lifeline rates for low income people
• End water shutoffs for tenants in foreclosed buildings Andy Katz rafting on the Mokelumne River

Endorsements:
Organizations

• Sierra Club
• League of Conservation Voters of the East Bay
• Alameda County Democratic Party
• Berkeley Democratic Club
• East Bay Young Democrats
• El Cerrito Democratic Club
• Metropolitan Greater Oakland Democratic Club
• Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club
• Green Party of Alameda County
• Berkeley Citizens Action
• AFSCME, Locals 2019 & 444
• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Locals 302 & 595
• Laborers, Local 304
• Plumbers Union, Local 342

Elected Officials

• State Senator Loni Hancock
• Assemblymember Nancy Skinner
• Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson
• Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia
• Albany Mayor Joanne Wile
• Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates
• El Cerrito Mayor Janet Abelson
• Emeryville Mayor Ruth Atkin
• Oakland City Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan
Vote November 2nd!

2010-07-22T12:57:00.000-07:00

East Bay Municipal Utility District

Director Andy Katz

Re-Election Campaign Kickoff

Tuesday July 27, 2010 6pm – 8pm

Revival Bar & Kitchen
2002 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley

Please join special guests Senator Loni Hancock, Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson, Contra Costa Supervisor John Gioia, and Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates for a reception to re-elect EBMUD Director Andy Katz.

Andy Katz is leading efforts for sustainability and green jobs at EBMUD, protecting our natural resources and water quality, increasing water conservation, recycling, and renewable energy projects, and fighting to help working families by expanding access to affordable lifeline rates and preventing foreclosure evictions-by-shutoff.

To sponsor, volunteer, or questions, please e-mail Andykatz2010@sonic.net or visit http://www.andykatz.net/
Contributions: sliding scale $30 - $300

Contributions may be mailed to: "Andy Katz 2010"
2150 Allston Way Suite 400, Berkeley, CA 94704

2010-07-22T08:10:00.000-07:00

Most blog posts here are daily updates from observing the 2009 international climate negotiations in Copenhagen. You can skip to posts on EBMUD issues here:

Water Supply Management Plan 2040
Drought Management in 2008-2009
Protecting Tenants in Foreclosed Buildings

2009-12-19T06:06:00.000-08:00

Copenhagen: Days 12-13

With heads of state in Copenhagen, President Obama brokered a political agreement, the Copenhagen Accord, after a multilateral meeting among U.S. President Barack Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and South African President Jacob Zuma. Nongovernmental organization delegates were cut down to 300 inside the Bella Center, so our access to the process was extremely limited, and we relied on leaked text to find out what was happening throughout the day and night.

The Copenhagen Accord is potentially a breakthrough in the sense that the United States joined with parties that have never come to the table with reductions - China, India, and Australia - on a statement of “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius,” and that “deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science.”

However, many small Island states and African nations have called for a maximum of 1.5 degree Celsius increase to protect their peoples’ survival. The final paragraph calls for an assessment of the Copenhagen Accord by 2015, including reconsideration of strengthening to 1.5 degrees. The goals to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050, and 80% reductions in developed countries by 2050 were removed from an earlier draft, but Michael Levi points out that 2 degrees is ultimately more stringent than a 50% reduction.

There are some concrete financial goals for clean development, forest preservation, and adaptation investments, but these will not be commitments of financial assistance and emission-reduction actions until countries voluntarily sign-on to the agreement and insert their commitments into an appendix attached to the three-page statement. An early draft contained this information that was not included in the final draft. Bottom line – this is a vehicle for the U.S. and other countries to step up, because the U.S. Senate has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

Hundreds of protestors immediately gathered outside the Bella Center, and Tuvalu formally intervened to object that “their future is not for sale.” Several other countries objected to the agreement. Andrew Revkin at the New York Times posted a blow-by-blow. The heads of major environmental groups including Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, and Environmental Defense Fund praised the deal, but some groups harshly criticized the lack of specific commitments. The New York Times has a chart on some of the key points.

Still, the announcement seems to have carried well in the press as a political story, probably the most important big picture for getting meaningful climate legislation past the U.S. Senate. However, late Friday night, meeting through the morning and until mid-afternoon Saturday, the Parties on the plenary floor expressed uncertainty and concern with the legal implications of the Conference of the Parties issuing a decision “taking note” of the Copenhagen Accord.

Since India, China, and other countries have sometimes stated that COP decisions are legally binding (as a matter of international law), the COP even “taking note” of the Copenhagen Accord could raise legal questions. Given a message to the U.S. Senate at the time of UNFCCC ratification,though, it is unlikely that a COP decision is binding as a matter of U.S. domestic law. U.S. Deputy Special Envoy Pershing clarified that the Copenhagen Accord is a political statement of heads of state. The President of the Conference, Environment Minister from Denmark, expressed optimism that Copenhagen has moved world nations closer to a legally binding agreement, and was followed with applause.

I hope so too. Ironically, this was the first day that I’ve seen the sun, after two weeks of clouds, rain, and heavy snow. Whether the Copenhagen Accord turns out to be a ray of light toward a real deal will depend on strong diplomacy between the U.S. and developing nations. It will also depend on the grassroots environmental movement and President Obama building bridges with the labor and human rights movements to clearly communicate the science to the American people, the economic benefits of clean energy jobs, and the national security consequences of inaction so the U.S. can pass climate legislation in the Senate.

2009-12-19T04:12:00.001-08:00

December 20, 2009

U.N. Climate Talks ‘Take Note’ of Accord Backed by U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/science/earth/20climate.html

NYTimes: Urgency Grows as U.S. and China Try to End Stalemate

2009-12-18T14:06:00.001-08:00

From The New York Times:

Urgency Grows as U.S. and China Try to End Stalemate

In a day of brinkmanship and seesawing expectations, President Obama
met with China's prime minister, but it was unclear if progress has
been made on the issues holding back a climate deal.

http://s.nyt.com/u/vbZ

2009-12-17T18:38:00.000-08:00

Americans Support Climate Agreement in Copenhagen
Voters also say economy is a priority according to Gallup Poll

Take Action Today

Here are some actions I've been forwarded. Generally, I think the best action we can take is raising national awareness, particularly in states where a Senator has not yet announced support for climate legislation, but we also need President Obama to lead the world to negotiate an agreement that is fair, ambitious, and binding.

TckTckTck

Act Now: 11th hour at Copenhagen:

Join the petition here: http://tcktcktck.org/i-am-ready
Forward this email to everyone!

Right now world leaders are gathered in Copenhagen, Demnark for an unprecedented 60 hours of direct negotiations to save the global climate talks. Experts agree that without a tidal wave of public pressure for a deal, the summit will likely collapse and nothing will be done to stop catastrophic global warming.

The TckTckTck campaign is an unprecedented collaboration among over 250 environmental, poverty, human rights, global development, religious, and labour organizations from around the world. Click below to sign their global petition for a real deal in Copenhagen -- the campaign already has a staggering 12 million supporters - help us make it the largest petition in history!

If enough of us stand up, our leaders will listen. Every single name is actually being read out at the summit right now -- sign on at the link below and be part of history.

Energy Action Coalition:

Yesterday, young people took a bold step to bring these voices to the negotiations as youth from 14 countries sat down in the Bella Center and refused to leave as they read the names of the 11 million people who had signed the petition for a fair, ambitious and binding agreement.
We need this level of action around the US. Between now and Saturday there are two things that you can do to help us step it up in the homestretch.

Organize your own sit-in at your Senators office and read the names of people who have signed the petition for a real deal. You can find that list here.
Call President Obama before he leaves for Copenhagen and urge him to strengthen emissions reductions targets to what the science demands. To make that call and find some tips on what to say click here.

The negotiations remain in deadlock largely because the US has not stepped up to the plate with the ambition that young people are demanding and that science dictates. Thanks to the advocacy by you and hundreds of thousands of people around the world, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the US would join others in securing a $100 billion fund to help developing countries if an agreement can be reached on a "substantive political accord" that would include transparency in tracking emissions cuts by major developing countries. The announcement was a pleasant surprise and we're working hard to clarify the specifics of how it will be executed, but it is still less than what developing countries are rightfully calling for. Likewise, the emissions reductions targets that the Obama Administration has put on the table - at 17% of 2005 levels - are far behind the approximately 35% of 1990 levels that most of the rest of the world is pledging. We must call for more.

1Sky:

Call on President Obama to commit the U.S. to ambitious targets and climate financing for developing nations that will put us on the path to 350 ppm, to survival, and to a fair, ambitious and binding global deal:

http://www.1sky.org/climate-finance

2009-12-17T18:21:00.000-08:00

But will it be a real deal?

350.org leaked an internal UN document accounting emission reduction commitments and concluding that there is a substantial gap between the commitments (including voluntary commitments and the upper range of voluntary commitments) and what is needed to ensure that temperatures increase to no higher than 2 degrees C, the level some scientists see as the highest temperature to avoid risks of catasrophic effects such as sea level rise, crop failure, and heat deaths, though scientists also point to greater certainty of climate protection if temperature increase is limited to 1.5 degrees C. The report concludes:

Even if the Parties agreed to deliver in accordance with the upper range of their pledge, this will still leave a gap of 1.9 to 4.2 Gt [Gigatons]. ...

Unless the remaining gap of around 1.9 to 4.2 Gt is closed and Parties commit themselves to strong action proior and after 2020, global emissions will peak later than 2020 and remain on an unsustainable pathway that could lead to concentrations equal or above 550 ppm with the related temperature raise around 3 degrees C equal or above 550 ppm. This in turn will reduce significantly the probability to stay within a temperature increase of 2 degrees C.

The Guardian (U.K.) had this analysis:

A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the Stern economic review of climate change for the UK government – as well as leaving up to 50% of species facing extinction. Even a rise of 2C would lead to a sharp decline in tropical crop yields, more flooding and droughts.

SF Gate Thin Green Line on this issue.

2009-12-17T18:07:00.000-08:00

BlueGreen Alliance Reception

The labor-environmental partnership is made real with the ability to create jobs from clean energy and energy efficiency projects. Members of Congress joined national leaders from labor unions and environmental organizations at a reception to call for a clean energy jobs bill.

In the East Bay, this partnership is getting off the group with the Oakland Apollo Alliance, convened by the Ella Baker Center and IEWU, where I participate on the steering committee as a representative of Sierra Club and EBMUD. We are working towards the Oakland City Council passing a Energy & Climate Action Plan that will focus clean energy, efficiency, and green jobs efforts.

Dave Foster, head of the BlueGreen Alliance, calls for green jobs.

Speaker Pelosi, with Congressmembers Markey, Waxman, Miller, Rangel

Andy Katz with Congressman Waxman, co-author of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

2009-12-17T09:51:00.000-08:00

Copenhagen: Day 11

Clinton helps talks get moving faster.
"Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, called it 'truly a bombshell.'"

U.S. says it could help raise $100 billion to fight climate change

The money would help the world's poorest countries and limit logging, Clinton says. But it's contingent on a broader agreement that is still uncertain.

By Jim Tankersley
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

December 17, 2009
4:52 a.m.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a press conference here that the unspecified American share of the money would come from public and private sources, would fund measures such as protecting carbon-heavy forests from logging and would be contingent upon nations reaching a broad agreement here that would lay the groundwork for a new treaty to combat global warming.

Echoing the most insistent American demand throughout the talks, she said that agreement must make clear that developing nations such as China and India will limit their greenhouse gas emissions as their economies grow, and that those limits must be subject to some form of outside verification.

"If there is not even a commitment to pursue transparency, that's kind of a deal-breaker for us," Clinton said.

The announcement came after Chinese officials warned other nations during overnight talks that China was doubtful that any broad agreement could be reached in Copenhagen, according to multiple sources close to the Chinese delegation.

Some of those sources said China was backing away from that rhetoric this morning, even before Clinton's funding announcement. In recent days, Chinese officials had cited a lack of long-term financing commitment from the United States and other wealthy nations as a major stumbling block to a deal.

Environmental groups and other nonprofits working closely with the negotiators here said the U.S. announcement --which follows major commitments from Japan, France and other developed nations -- could break what has been a nearly two-week deadlock on key issues.

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, called it "truly a bombshell."

Andrew Deutz, director of international government relations for the Nature Conservancy, called it "a huge step forward toward common ground" and "the type of high-level political offer that we've been looking for world leaders to bring to Copenhagen to reach a global deal."

More strident groups said the money fell short.

"Climate change is already killing people in Africa, and this commitment is simply insufficient to tackle the climate crisis," Mithika Mwenda, coordinator of the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance, said in a press release.

Government officials and observers involved with the talks said in recent days that a major U.S. funding announcement could trigger a chain-reaction leading to a broad agreement.

The long-term money offer, those sources said, could win over African and island-nation delegates who have long complained that wealthy nations are not offering deep enough reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The African and island-nation delegates could then pressure China and India to compromise with the United States on transparency provisions, thereby clearing the two largest hurdles to an accord.

All sides in the negotiations acknowledge that time in running short, with heads of state beginning to arrive en masse today. President Obama lands here early Friday, the day the conference is scheduled to end.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

AP Wire
Chicago Times-Tribune on U.S. Policy Implications

Reporting from Copenhagen - Attempting to revive climate negotiations that appear dangerously close to flat-lining, the Obama administration announced today that it would join allies in raising $100 billion by 2020 to help the world's poorest countries adapt to climate change.

Chinese Reaction Moves Talks Forward

And three hours later, China opens up its position. Days before, it had been 'no room for negotiation' on issues of monitoring, reporting, and verification.

Associated Press: China is willing to detail emission efforts
Thursday, December 17, 2009
(12-17) 08:07 PST COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) --

China says it is willing to provide details about its actions to control carbon emissions, moving to meet a key U.S. demand for verification of China's promises to fight global warming.

Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said China is ready for "dialogue and cooperation that is not intrusive, that does not infringe on China's sovereignty."

His remarks Thursday came after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. would join others in raising $100 billion a year to help developing countries fight climate change.

The financing of climate aid for poor nations and the verification of China's voluntary actions to reduce the growth of its emissions address two key issues blocking an agreement at the Copenhagen summit.

Some criticism on specificity:

Indo-Asian News Service, AFP: While Clinton’s announcement was welcomed by green NGOs, delegates from developing countries were more sceptical. A delegate from Bangladesh told IANS: “We would like to be assured that this is not a way to recount existing aid.

...Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace International Climate Policy Adviser, said: “For the first time the US has publicly stated support for a long-term global funding for developing world adaptation and mitigation to climate change. Citing a figure of $100 billion per year by 2020 Clinton has signalled that the US position on climate can be moved. “However, Clinton failed to provided specifics on how much the US would contribute to this fund.”

Meanwhile: Sit-In at the US State Department, Reading names of 11 Million Petition Signers

http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/12/17/live-blog-dc-sit-in/

2009-12-16T20:30:00.000-08:00

Copenhagen: Day 10

Monitoring an Empty Plenary Room

I stayed in the Bella Center until 3:30am Wednesday morning to monitor the Kyoto Protocol and Long-term Collaborative Action Contact Group meetings and Closing Plenaries. As typical, the open plenaries were suspended while backroom negotiations likely continued. The meeting was scheduled to begin at 10pm, and did appear to be ready to start at midnight, but before the Chair called the meeting to order, the G77 called a closed meeting.

In past Conferences of the Parties, there were more iterations of open sessions and behind the scenes work. This way, the public could better assess how work was progressing, and offer informed responses to Parties. Many documents I've received have been under seal but were given to me by Parties, or other NGO delegates with contacts with certain Parties. By the time a document is officially released, it's often out of date, or advanced negotiations are in progress on certain points.

The reluctance to discuss the draft language in public also shows how intense the conflicting positions are. The Parties are still far apart on issues like legal form of the treaty, emissions targets and how to differentiate targets among countries, finance, and the list continues. The bottom line is that an observer can learn more about the general state of negotiations from casual hallway conversations with other NGO delegates, often State Party delegates, and sometimes even twitter than inside an open plenary. The New York Times has covered the details of some of the specific disputes, but largely the media is focused on the broad call to action, which may be for the best in achieving Congressional action for climate protection. Still, the in-depth reporting is critical to ensuring the real deal is fair and ambitious.

The stakes are high, but I have a high degree of hope that with Senator Kerry meeting today with Chinese lead negotiator Su Wei, with Secretary of State Clinton appearing Thursday, and President Obama on Friday, that negotiations will come together.

2009-12-16T17:58:00.000-08:00

Copenhagen: Day 9

Young Elected Officials Call for Obama to Secure Clean Energy Economy

Young Americans in Copenhagen press for energy action now

COPENHAGEN – On the first day of the critical week of United Nations climate negotiations, young elected officials in Copenhagen and in the United States called on President Obama and Congress to secure a strong agreement that will grow clean energy jobs and address climate change.

Five young elected officials presented the statement (printed below) to the United States delegation in Copenhagen on Monday in advance of President Obama’s address all UN delegates on Friday, December 18. “Our message to President Obama and Congress is simple,” said Andy Katz, Director of the East Bay Municipal Utility District in California, and the Chair of Sierra Club California. “Revitalize our economy with clean energy jobs. Young Americans have the most at stake – and the highest price – if we fail to solve the climate and clean energy crisis.”

The statement attracted support from over 95 young elected city council members, mayors, and state representatives from 30 states. “While the rest of the economy is struggling, clean energy jobs are a real bright spot,” said Rep. Jeremy Kalin (North Branch, MN), chair of CLEAN, the Coalition of Legislators for Energy Action Now working with the White House and the United States Senate.

“Action in Copenhagen and in Congress is critical to scale up the job opportunities.” “Our dependence on oil is a serious threat to America’s national security, which is why both young people and veterans have called on making America more secure by taking control of our energy future,” said Rep. Alex Cornell du Houx (Brunswick, ME), an Iraq war veteran in Copenhagen with the Truman National Security Project. “The world is looking to the United States to lead again on climate solutions,” said Representative Kate Knuth (New Brighton, MN), attending the conference as a policy mentor to a youth delegation from the Will Steger Foundation. “America cannot afford to be on the sidelines of the new, clean energy economy,” said Deputy Town Supervsior Dominic Frongillo (Caroline, NY). “Congress and President Obama can help regain our competitiveness and ensure the most advanced wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars say ‘Made in America.’”

The statement presented to the United States delegation reads as follows:

We, young elected officials of the United States, believe freedom, independence, and self sufficiency are at the heart of America, and should be at the heart of our strategy for energy independence in the 21st Century. As elected representatives with a personal stake in our future, we believe it’s time for a bold, new vision for America’s future. We call on Congress to start investing in new, safe energy technologies like wind and solar power that will rebuild our manufacturing base, create jobs, and grow our economy. We need to put millions of Americans back to work refitting our homes and buildings for energy efficiency with jobs that can’t be shipped overseas. The United States can lead once again by forging a bold, binding, and just agreement in Copenhagen that will secure a safe and abundant world for future generations of Americans.

Alex Du Houx, 26, is a Maine State Representative and an Iraq war veteran
Dominic Frongillo, 26, is a Councilmember in the Town of Caroline, New York
Jeremy Kalin, 34, is a Minnesota State Representative
Andy Katz, 29, is a Director of the East Bay Municipal Utility District in Oakland, California
Kate Knuth, 26, is a Minnesota State Representative

You can see the 100 signers of the statement here.

Local Government Leaders Urge Treaty Recognition of Local and Sub-National Governments

I joined Mayors from Des Moines, Iowa, Gainesville Florida, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and others to encourage the State Department to retain language proposed for the treaty recognizing the role of local and subnational governments. Local governments are the leaders, and the implentors of climate action. I testified about the role of local government in planning and land use, and EBMUD's food recycling to renewable energy program.

Veterans for Climate Action

Generals, Captains, and military veterans held a press briefing on the national security risks of climate change. While most activists inside and outside of the Bella Center are discussing the severe temperature increases and likely consequences of increased heat death, drought, crop failure, and mass migration in South America and Africa as human rights issues, an important message for passing climate legislation in the U.S. Senate is to translate the severity of human impacts into how this will impact national security.

Monitoring Emissions Trading Contact Group

What's Supplemental, Anyway? - Earlier today in the Kyoto Protocol Emissions Trading contact group, delegates were debating the meaning of "supplementary" emissions reductions - an undefined term, widely interpreted to mean that countries can offset their emissions, but these offset reductions must be "supplemental" to the actual reductions of a country. Several countries voiced concern about the current lack of a definition - whether this means 10% of the reductions in a compliance period, or 49%, as could be interpreted.

Offsets for Nuclear and Sequestration? - What was not debated - but an important question that still remains uncertain - whether offsets can be earned through nuclear and carbon sequestration projects. No country raised this issue, but the document listed several directions the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol could go.

2009-12-14T09:13:00.001-08:00

Copenhagen: Day 8

This morning, despite that plenary sessions were scheduled, sessions were cancelled. Delegates were told that the African union walked out. While many G77 and China countries have staked out a position to support the continued force of the Kyoto Protocol, and to add a parallel track for the Long Term Cooperative Action, developed countries have expressed support for options such as a new treaty that would replace the Kyoto Protocol. Finance commitments from developed countries to developing and least-developed nations are also unclear.

The Compounds with a Bite - Some technical meetings continued in the afternoon. I observed a meeting on methodological issues, focusing on high global warming potential (GWP) compounds. For example, many chemicals such as refrigerants can cause tens of thousands of times more damage than carbon dioxide. For example there's Sulfur hexafluoride, with a GWP of 23,900. Mitigating High GWP compounds is considered very cost effective because of alternative technologies and the relatively fewer molecules emitted. However, the Kyoto Protocol only addresses a handful of the dozens of known compounds. An effective treaty needs to allow scientific panels to include compounds based on the best available science.

Although methane is more associated with agriculture and waste industries, the methane collected from EBMUD’s anaerobic digester would cause 20 – 60 times more damage to the climate if the digesters didn’t convert the methane into carbon dioxide and renewable energy.

Childrens' Climate Art - I also presented climate art from elementary students in Los Angeles to staff for Congressman Henry Waxman, the author of the House Climate legislation. I delivered 1,000 pieces of childrens' artwork to the United States delegation to demonstrate the concerns felt by the generation after me. The kids came from diverse backgrounds all over the Los Angeles area. The art in the picture below is an Earth with a fever and thermometer, captioned, "I'm Sick."

Other work constrasted an Earth without the devastating effects of global warming, with images of other planets, space, Earth as a melting ice cream cone, removal of places to symbolize sea level rise, and even several pieces with a scratched out Earth. When kids learn about climate change, I have no doubt that it often sparks feelings of loss and despair.

2009-12-14T09:12:00.005-08:00

Copenhagen: Day 7

Local Government Briefing - The Bella Center was closed today – I attended a briefing by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) held by the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Local officials from around the United States heard about the latest climate science, and discussed the goal of including in the resulting treaty text a preamble or Shared Vision reference to local and sub-national efforts to mitigate climate change. From knowing how strong a model California’s forward-reaching policies can be, I hope this reference is included so that ongoing efforts are encouraged.

Some examples: 1) California tailpipe emission standards, now extended nationally by President Obama, 2) California 20% Renewable Energy Standard by 2010 and stepping up to 33% by 2020, 3) local land use, smart growth, and public transit efforts, and 4) EBMUD moving to recycle food waste into renewable energy.

I later joined a meeting of U.S. Youth organizing for the U.S. Congress to act. I am continually impressed with the enthusiasm of my generation to lead on climate action.

2009-12-14T09:12:00.001-08:00

Copenhagen: Day 6

The Conference of the Parties (COP) re-convened on Saturday after suspension for several days. Tuvalu gave an emotional and powerful statement to the States that are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, emphasizing that this is about survival for his country and other small island states. Many countries in the G77 and China expressed support for a “two-track” process, keeping the Kyoto Protocol in effect, but creating a new Protocol, the Long Term Cooperative Action (LCA) to run in parallel. This language allows countries without emission reduction commitments to add commitments that would become binding, and creates a program for action toward 2050 emission reductions.

However, some industrialized countries, including Japan, called attention to the problem that the Kyoto Protocol represents 33% of global emissions, and the need to include industrialized countries. Though this argument has been debated, the point is clear that an agreement needs to be binding, ambitious, and should include the United States. Developed nations argue that in setting very low or no reduction targets for some developing countries, that the Bali Action Plan also included language that targets should be differentiated by a State’s “respective capacity”.

From hallway conversations I had immediately after, it seemed that many of the implementation issues such as monitoring, reporting, and verification, to ensure compliance, are in dispute for what may be (1) reasons of sovereignty, and perhaps (2) capacity in developing areas. I hope that through the negotiations these issues can be addressed. In some ways the GATT Agreement, which established the World Trade Organization (WTO), impacts national sovereignty far more than allowing international verification of reductions, but it all comes down to the details. From experience working on Climate Action Plans and greenhouse gas inventory methods in California, there are strong models for developing inventories of carbon emissions, so these technical issues can be resolved. Still, addressing these issues will be critical for securing U.S. Senate support for climate legislation, so it’s important that the negotiating Parties come together on implementation issues for a binding agreement.

2009-12-11T20:30:00.000-08:00

Copenhagen: Day 5

In a sincere attempt to attend a briefing for NGO delegates on G77 interests, I arrived so early to the briefing and ended up sitting in on an actual closed meeting of the G77 and China, though I didn't realize it at the time. In general, State Parties were signaling that they wanted the text to move forward, but a number of disagreements remain. The diplomatic style of State Party representatives in the room varied significantly, with China leading with a brief statement indicating their mild support and interest in the recommended text moving forward despite very clear reservations and disagreements, but with India taking the time to list detailed points of concern. The Group Chair, from South Africa, defended the process behind the development of the language, emphasizing sources from earlier documents and discussions, and the consequences of not having language ready to move forward.

The text under discussion was regarding the release of the Chair's proposed language amending the Kyoto Protocol and adopting language for Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA). The LCA draft “states that emissions should be halved worldwide by 2050 compared to 1990 levels, but it also suggests 80 percent and 95 percent reductions by that year as possible alternative options.” ClimateProgress explains:

Halving emissions by 2050 is estimated by scientists to have roughly a 70 percent chance of limiting global warming to two degrees C above pre-industrial levels. An 80 percent cut would increase the likelihood of staying below the two-degree threshold to 85 percent. However, small island nations and many African nations believe the science shows that warming needs to be limited to 1.5 ° C to ensure their survival.

For any wonks reading this, here are links to draft text, including bracketed options where the issues are unresolved:

http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/draftcoretext.pdf
http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/awgkpchairstext111209.pdf

2009-12-10T21:16:00.000-08:00

Copenhagen: Day 4

Today I attended briefings for U.S. Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) delegates held by the State Department's lead negotiator, who discussed with delegates the key issues getting to a deal, such as financing structures, and the important relationship between negotiations and U.S. Congressional action on climate legislation.

U.S. - China Youth Exchange

Afterwards, I attended a session between American and Chinese youth. Despite the slow pace of negotiations, it gave me new hope that so many young people from China are participating in the conference, and not only share the environmental and human rights values that many Americans hold, but are actively engaged in research, business, communications, and advocacy to promote China's acceptance of emission reduction targets.

While the official position of China earlier this week was to block some proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, it was refreshing to engage in an open discussion with young people from China who could balance China's developing nation status and need for international financing mechanisms, but who shared a commitment to wanting our nations to adopt an ambitious, binding treaty. When my break-out group discussed shared opposition to coal-fired power plants, an economics PhD student from China recalled the prisoners' dilemma, where prisoners are logically doomed to their worst fate due to mutual disincentives, but she also pointed out that a solution to the dilemma is open channels of communication.

This evening, some new channels were opened among China and U.S. NGO youth. While I certainly hope this is happening effectively among the State Party negotiators, it was insightful to learn at a tactical and cultural values level how Chinese researchers and organizers are advocating for their government to act, too.

2009-12-09T22:01:00.000-08:00

Copenhagen: Day 3
I think the issues from Day 3 are best summarized by the Center for American Progress Wonk Room. My brief synopsis follows:

Key Event- Tuvalu, and other small island states, are staring at the brink of survival when considering the outcome of international action to stop climate change. Tuvalu moved to form a new "contact group" to begin talks on a parallel protocol to the Kyoto Protocol. While many developing nations supported this, Saudi Arabia, China, India, and others opposed, with the US, EU, and Australia and others silent. After this effort was blocked, Tuvalu moved to suspend the COP negotiations, and without consensus, they were suspended. This question of process remained unresolved.

Key Issues:
1. "Ambition," - The scale of emissions reductions by developed countries.
2. "Differentiation," Whether some developing countries will be pressured to take direct targets.
3. "Support" To what extent the developed countries will provide financing and technology transfer to the developing countries to reduce their emissions.

There are real advantages to opening up these issues with a new protocol. The Bali Action Plan from last year requires the United States to take on targets that are "comparable" to Japan and the EU, but doesn't address targets for India and China. The US also lacks firm commitments for emission reductions and international aid.

2009-12-07T12:49:00.000-08:00

EBMUD Adopts Water Supply Management Plan 2040

The EBMUD Board of Directors adopted the Water Supply Management Plan 2040 to meet our water needs over the next 30 years on Tuesday, October 13. While the Plan includes increased water conservation programs, recycled water projects, rationing during worst-case droughts, securing water transfers and groundwater storage, it also includes desalination, and expanding Pardee reservoir with a new dam.

The proposal to expand Pardee Reservior would flood nearly 1,000 acres, including about two miles of riparian and scenic stretch of the Mokelumne River that is used for whitewater recreation and fishing. I support managing our water supply relying on groundwater storage, recycled water, rationing in severe worst-case droughts, and increased investment in conservation programs to avoid the environmental impacts of a new dam that would destroy our natural resources.

East Bay Express 4/29/09 - "Sierra Water Grab"
San Francisco Chronicle 10/14/09 "EBMUD Board Votes to Boost Water Supply"
Read the adopted Water Supply Management Plan 2040 here
***Amendments made on the hearing dates may not be included.

Votes for expanding Pardee: Directors Coleman, Foulkes, Mellon, Patterson.
Votes against expanding Pardee: Directors McIntosh, Katz, Linney

The Board by acclamation included in the adopting resolution to condition future development of expanding Pardee on the support of upcountry stakeholders, and confirming the need for water based on the latest information.

2009-12-07T12:03:00.000-08:00

Diesel Truck Standards to Cut Toxic Pollution by 80 percent
NBC Story 12/12/08

Diesel trucks and buses on the road represent the largest source of toxic diesel emissions in California.

These toxic diesel emissions are responsible for causing approximately 1,500 premature deaths and more than 38,000 asthma attacks annually in the state. Truck drivers, children, the elderly and those with compromised immune systems are especially vulnerable to the health risks of diesel pollution. The loss of life, health care costs, and lost work and school days cost an estimated $12 billion each year, nine times more than the cost to clean up the trucks.

Update: Due to economic concerns, the California Air Resources Board continues to monitor planned implementation of the Truck and Bus Rule, and will take public comment at their December 9, 2009 Board meeting.

2009-12-07T11:35:00.000-08:00

News archive on EBMUD drought policy in 2008:

East Bay Express Story

ABC 7 News Story

EBMUD WaterSmart Center

2009-12-06T17:36:00.000-08:00

News archive on Protecting Tenants in Foreclosed Buildings from Water Shut-offs:

ABC 7 Story February 26, 2008
ABC 7 Story March 11, 2008

San Francisco Chronicle March 25, 2008
San Francisco Chronicle March 26

SF Chronicle on Governor's Veto of AB 1333 (Hancock)

EBMUD will seek to co-sponsor legislation with Alameda County in 2010 to find a permanent solution so that EBMUD can get bills paid through property liens, a remedy available to every other water utility in California.

Andy Katz

U.N. Climate Talks ‘Take Note’ of Accord Backed by U.S. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/science/earth/20climate.html

NYTimes: Urgency Grows as U.S. and China Try to End Stalemate

U.N. Climate Talks ‘Take Note’ of Accord Backed by U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/science/earth/20climate.html