 |
AGI Home | About AGI | Contact Us | Search |
 |
Climate Change Policy (2-17-10) 
Climate change has become a more prominent issue for the U.S. Congress with the release of new reports and assessments, policy changes in other countries related to the Kyoto Protocol and other multi-national agreements and the development of carbon-reduction policies in the U.S. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 detailing the present state of knowledge of global climate change, which stirred intense debate in the 110th Congress. In the 111th Congress climate policy will be at the forefront, with progressive environmentalists like Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) as the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) as the chairman of the new House Energy and Environment Subcommittee. A general history of the climate change debate is available at the Congressional Research Service's Global Climate Change Briefing Book. Congressman Calls for Investigation of Messaging to Meteorologists (2/10) NEEF President Diane Wood, responding to the letters in an E&E Daily story, stated "Earth Gauge employs a science-based approach relying on observed data. The data is derived from government agencies -- including NOAA, EPA and NSF -- as well as peer-reviewed literature, including scientific publications such as Science, Nature and the Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union." Congressman Sensenbrenner is the ranking member of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. More information about his letters and his concerns are available from the committee web site. Obama Announces an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (2/10) The task force will be named within 180 days of this announcement and then begin developing a comprehensive plan to develop cost-effective CCS within 10 years, with 5-10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016. The task force will look at coordinating existing administrative authorities and programs, including building international collaboration on CCS. Obama named comprehensive energy and climate legislation as the largest incentive for CCS, and this task force will prepare for the low carbon energy transition and spur investments into CCS in the near future. New NEPA Guidelines Draft Includes Greenhouse Gases (2/10) The new draft comes as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of NEPA. Enacted in 1970, NEPA recognizes that many federal activities affect the environment and mandates that federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions. NEPA emphasizes public involvement in governmental decisions relating to the environment by increasing transparency and ease of implementation.
IPCC Regrets Himalayan Glacier Error (1/10) CIA Will Share Satellite Data with Select Scientists (1/10) CIA Director Leon Paneta strongly supports the program, believing the national security implications of desertification, sea level rise, and population shifts justify this collaboration. However the program has come under scrutiny in Congress, particularly by Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) who thinks the CIA should spend more time fighting terrorists, “not spying on sea lions.” The Medea program has little to no impact on regular intelligence gathering and is more or less free. What is does is release information already collected or utilizes already deployed sensors to gather environmental data while passing over wilderness areas. The images that have been declassified are released at a lower resolution to mask the true abilities of CIA satellites. So far the data scientists have received has allowed them to analyze Arctic sea ice to help with summer melt records. In addition to sea ice data, scientists hope to gather information on clouds, glaciers, deserts, and tropical forests. Murkowski Formalizes Disapproval oF EPA Ruling (1/10) The resolution has 36 Republican co-sponsors and endorsement from 3 Democrats. An additional two Democrats—Senators Byron Dorgan (ND) and Jim Webb (VA)—and two Republicans—Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins—are considering co-sponsorship. Once a disapproval resolution is placed on the Senate calendar, it is then subject to expedited consideration on the Senate floor, and not subject to filibuster. It only takes 51 votes to pass a disapproval resolution as opposed to the 60 needed in Murkowski’s original plan of introducing an amendment. Read the full press release from Murkowski here. Interim Climate Accord Emerges From Copenhagen (12/09) While it may not be the replacement for the Kyoto Treaty that some leaders had hoped for, the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon still considered it a “significant achievement.” Many countries were frustrated that the U.S. would not set higher reduction targets, but Obama was adamant about adhering to the 17 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020 and ultimately 42 percent below by 2030 set by the House-passed climate bill (H.R. 2454) because he did not wish to supersede ongoing congressional considerations. The U.S. entourage included heads of many key federal agencies; including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Jane Lubchenco, U.S. Geological Survey Director Marcia McNutt, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) led a House delegation of 14 democrats and 6 republicans to Copenhagen, including several authors of the Waxman-Markey climate bill (H.R. 2454) passed in the House. From the Senate, only the lead author of the Senate climate bill John Kerry (D-MA) and climate skeptic James Inhofe (R-OK) attended. Climate Legislation in the Wake of Copenhagen (12/09) In the Senate, work is continuing on compromise climate legislation with Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) taking the lead on drafting new language, after earlier measures failed to garner support. The three senators sent the framework for a new climate change bill to President Obama on December 10, 2009, as the Copenhagen Climate Summit was underway. The framework is a broad document that outlines 11 vision areas and a goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by about 17 percent of the 2005 levels by 2020. The reduction target is the same as the 2020 target in the House bill. The framework’s vision areas ask to reach significant and achievable emission targets through investments in clean energy technology, strive for energy independence, set national emission standards by Congress not by federal agencies or states, provide monetary assistance and protection to consumers, encourage new nuclear power plants and a nuclear workforce, promote clean coal technology and rapid deployment of carbon capture and sequestration systems, create American jobs through the clean technology industry, make it beneficial for farmers to reduce emissions without regulations, have vigilant oversight of the carbon market, get a strong global commitment to addressing climate change and protecting intellectual property rights, and build climate legislation consensus in the Senate. Though the lack of details is frustrating to some, the authors say it sends a clear signal to the international community that the Senate is actively working on legislation. Kerry explains that the lack of specifics allows the committees with jurisdiction over the various vision areas to provide input. He plans on taking language from the Kerry-Boxer climate bill (S. 1733), passed by the Environment and Public Works Committee in November, and the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S. 1462) passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee in July. A formal bill will not be introduced until at least the end of January. Agriculture Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) plans on holding climate hearings in late January before submitting her committee’s input and a bill is not expected until the Finance and Commerce Committees have had a chance to do the same. A day after the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham framework announcement, Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) released a “cap and refund” bill called the Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal (CLEAR) Act (S. 2877) as an alternative to the current cap and trade climate legislation model. It auctions off carbon credits and gives the revenues to low- and middle-income families to offset the increased cost of meeting a 20 percent emission reduction by 2020 proposed in the measure. Kerry and the others said they are open to incorporating any idea the will satisfy their vision areas. As Congress tries to finalize some sort of climate legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted its final endangerment rule that will become effective January 14, 2010. This rule says that GHGs are endangering public health and are caused in part by motor vehicles, therefore the EPA has authority to regulate these emissions under the Clean Air Act. Some members of Congress see this as EPA circumventing congressional authority and have introduced legislation to negate the EPA endangerment findings. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) are leading the charge against the EPA, but are unlikely to gain enough support to overturn the ruling. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) admits Murkowski is unlikely to succeed, but is confident that lawsuits will soon sprout up and “kill the endangerment finding.” A comprehensive analysis of the Senate climate debate and key senators in the 60-vote race was prepared by ScienceInsider, and is available as part of their climate blog. Stolen Emails Fuel Debate on the Integrity of Climate Science (12/09) The content of the private correspondences has spurred a bitter and increasingly acrimonious debate about climate science and scientific ethics. It is uncertain what effect, if any, the emails will have on climate legislation. In the U.K., Professor Phil Jones, the director of CRU, has stepped down and an independent investigator, Sir Muir Russell, will investigate whether there was any suppression or manipulation of data, determine if practices meet “best scientific practice,” review compliance with U.K.’s data access laws and review management and security at CRU. His report is not due until the spring of 2010. In addition, more than 1,700 British scientists signed a letter in support of the scientists involved in the emails and in support of the science showing global warming is in part due to anthropogenic factors. At the United Nations, the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group One, Thomas Stocker and Qin Dahe, issued a statement saying that their work provides an open, transparent and unbiased report on the current knowledge of the climate system and its changes. In the U.S., some of the American scientists involved in the emails held a press conference and stated that they were not involved in any scientific misconduct. Another group of twenty-five climate scientists in the U.S., wrote an open letter (PDF) to Congress stating “The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen e-mails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming.” Twenty-seven Republican senators sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon asking for an independent investigation of the IPCC and its reports based on “allegations of adjusting or manipulating data and why various individuals refused to disclose raw data.” The senators compared their request to an investigation of the U.N.’s Oil for Food program by an outside entity in 2004. Some Republican senators sent a letter to EPA asking the agency to halt its efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act “until the agency can demonstrate the science underlying these regulatory decisions has not been compromised” based on the information garnered from the stolen emails. In congressional hearings in December, lawmakers and witnesses expressed their opinions regarding the emails and the science. “The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus . . . that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity,” Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a House committee. At the other end of the debate and in the other chamber, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stated at a December 2nd hearing, “One cannot deny that the e-mails raised fundamental questions concerning . . . transparency and openness in science.” Senator Inhofe has formally requested a hearing about the emails in the Environment and Public Works Committee, while Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA), Chair of the House Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence, has stated he will organize a hearing about the emails at the beginning of 2010. The media continues to cover the controversy regarding the emails from many angles. The Wall Street Journal provides a sixty megabyte file of all of the stolen information as a link in a November 23rd news story while the Associated Press had five reporters read all 1,073 emails and then send summaries of their analyses to research ethics, climate science and science policy experts. The experts indicate that the science regarding global warming was not faked based on the content of the emails. NSF Launches Climate Science Web Site “To What Degree?” (12/09) EPA Sends GHG Endangerment Findings to White House (11/09) The OMB has 90 days to review the findings, however many expect a ruling ahead of the United Nations Copenhagen climate change treaty conference which starts on December 7, 2009. Climate Change Legislation on Hold Until Spring (11/09) Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are now working on legislation that could garner greater bi-partisan support and secure at least 60 votes in the Senate. Expect Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), Agriculture Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Energy Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Budget Committee Ranking Member Judd Gregg (R-NH) to play a major role in crafting climate change legislation. Watch for fence-sitters from key states (for example, both senators from AR, IN, OH, ME, MI, MT, ND and WV) with regional concerns about the effects of climate change legislation to drive any late-breaking compromises in order to bring small but significant blocks of “yes” votes on the Senate floor. RFF Seminar on Environmental Diplomacy (11/09) Smith discussed the importance of a science-based approach, citing the Montreal Protocol from 1990 that phased out ozone depleting chemicals. Smith cautioned against having Copenhagen turn into another Kyoto Protocol mess, where international agreements were made prior to U.S. domestic approval leading to unfulfilled international targets. Frank Loy, former undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, and Alan Hecht, former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) negotiator, concurred with Smith’s remarks. Loy talked about the special role of the U.S. in international agreements. The U.S. is a key player that cannot be ignored despite an often cumbersome congressional approval process that can be undermined by a single Senator. Loy speculated that the Montreal Protocol was so successful because there was a readily available alternative to the banned chemicals. Climate change, on the other hand, will be hampered by the lack of a clear alternative to business as usual practices. Study Ties Drought to Population, Not Climate Change (10/09) There were 6.5 million people in Georgia in 1990, and now there are 9.5 million people. That is almost a 50 percent increase in only 17 years. The population is still growing and little has been done to reduce consumption or increase storage of water. Although it was much drier in the 19th century, it had less of an effect due to the small population. Most climate models have actually predicted that as temperatures rise, rainfall will increase in the Southeast, but this will come with an increase in evaporation. Richard Seager, a climate modeler at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia, says the best one could hope for is for the two to balance out and that “climate change should not be counted on to solve the Southeast’s water woes.” Survey Finds Public More Skeptical of Global Warming (10/09) Despite the decreases, the survey shows increased support for a cap-and-trade program with 50 percent of the respondents favoring setting limits on carbon emissions. This comes after a separate Pew Research Center poll on current events during early October found only 23 percent of the 1,002 people called could correctly identify that a “cap-and-trade” program dealt with energy and the environment, as opposed to health care, banking reform, or unemployment. Climate Change Legislation Passes Despite Boycott (10/09) The Republicans on the committee staged a boycott of discussions on the bill because they wanted to get a detailed cost analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first. Boxer did not want to delay the bill any longer on a redundant request, so after three days of trying to reach a compromise the committee voted 11-1 in favor of the bill without considering amendments by either party. No Republican committee members were present for the vote breaking a tradition of having at least two minority party members as part of any quorum for committee votes. The one vote against the bill came from Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) who felt his amendments needed to be addressed. Among the 80 amendments submitted by Democrats, Baucus’ amendment would decrease the emissions target from a 20 percent reduction to a 17 percent by 2020. The latest version of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill is 959 pages in length and was released to the public on October 30. The bill is separated into two major divisions: “Authorization For Pollution Reduction, Transition, and Adaption” and “Pollution Reduction and Investment.” The first division includes titles for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction programs, research, transition and adaptation. The second division outlines the “cap-and-trade” scenario, or the benchmarks for carbon dioxide reductions, the GHG registry systems, and the offsets program. The bill calls for a 20 percent reduction of GHGs compared to 2005 levels by 2020 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. To reduce GHG emissions, the bill looks to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), which includes finding geological storage sites and developing demonstration projects, plus advanced nuclear energy, water efficiency, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and natural gas. The research covers advanced energy and drinking water adaptation. Water is also covered in the adaptation programs which provide safeguards for natural resource conservation and additional programs for floods, wildfires, and coastal adaptation. The newest version includes one major addition. It limits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s power to regulate GHGs by making sure congressional emission caps preempt EPA’s ability to moderate emission under the Clean Air Act. The addition also gives EPA more power over large industrial emission sources than the Waxman-Markey bill in the House. EPA has been flexing its regulatory power already in regard to those large point sources, issuing a rule on October 30 to force sources emitting more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents to constrict emissions. The Democratic majority is trying to get a Senate-approved measure passed before the Copenhagen climate summit in December. Besides the Kerry-Boxer bill, other portions of the a full climate change bill are awaiting votes in the Finance Committee and the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are also working outside of the committees to find solutions to garner the 60 votes needed for passage. Senators Graham and Kerry wrote an op-ed for the NY Times in mid-October calling for more offshore oil and gas drilling and greater incentives for nuclear energy. Their plan will likely be on the discussion table as these provisions could garner more support from Republicans and some Democrats. With the number of controversies and compromises still to be tackled, it is unlikely the bill will reach the Senate floor before Copenhagen or even by the end of this year. While the continued uncertainty about congressional actions on climate change would be a significant disappointment for the Administration and the international community, President Obama has indicated that he will make climate change legislation a top priority once health care reform legislation is completed. The Kerry-Graham op-ed in the NY Times: Climate Change Bill Frozen; Expected to Heat Up in Oct. (9/09) Given the delay in releasing this Senate draft and the lack of a finished bill, it is unlikely that any climate change legislation will be completed before the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen in December. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid suggested this a week before the draft’s release and the Administration’s climate czar, Carol Browner, confirmed this assessment two days after the release of the Senate draft when she said a bill was unlikely by December. The Senate draft has eight major titles and many involve geoscience-related research and development including: I. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Programs, II. Research, III. Transition and Adaptation, VII. Global Warming Pollution Reduction, and VIII. Additional Greenhouse Gas Standards. The text of the draft and summaries of the titles are available in the Sept. 30 press release on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Majority page. EPA Finalizes First U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reporting System (9/09) By collecting this data, it will give some insight into where the GHGs are coming from and help determine what needs to be done in order to lower the emissions through appropriate policies and programs. This data will also empower businesses to compare their own emissions with those of similar facilities in order to collaborate in finding the best and cheapest way to decrease their emissions. Environmentalists and some industries are in favor of the emissions registry. Industries such as the American Chemistry Council, the American Petroleum Institute and the Edison Electric Institute applauded this new version of the rule that will allow facilities and suppliers to cease annual reporting if they limit their GHG emissions consistently over several years. The facilities must begin recording emissions January 1, 2010 and will submit their records to EPA in 2011. DOI Launches Climate Change Response Council (9/09) The strategy includes a Climate Change Response Council of senior DOI officials, led by Salazar, to coordinate actions and facilitate better communication related to climate change within the DOI bureaus and offices and with other agencies. The council will oversee the Carbon Footprint Project, which is creating an emissions reduction program, and the Carbon Storage Project, which is working on both geological and biological storage techniques. Salazar is also creating eight regional climate change response centers to manage strategies and data for each region and engage the public. To focus on how climate change impacts drought, wildfires, invasive species, and migration patterns across land boundaries, he also created the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. UN Releases Compendium on Climate Change (9/09) The review is broken into five topics: Earth systems, ice, oceans, ecosystems, and systems management. Earth systems includes new climate modeling systems, growth in carbon dioxide emissions, and possible increase of 4.3 degrees Centigrade making “tipping points,” like the end of summer sea ice in the Arctic, occur sooner. The ice section covers more on the status of summer sea ice in the Arctic, acceleration of glacier and ice sheet melting, and the hole in the ozone’s cooling affect on Antarctica. The oceans section addresses the more rapid projections for sea level rise and acidification. The ecosystems section covers biodiversity threats and drought problems. The final section recommends large-scale efforts to preserve ecosystems, protection of tropical forests, and finding innovative ways to keep carbon out of the atmosphere. The UNEP report is available from the compendium website. AERC Sustainability of Urban Ecosystems Briefing (9/09) Donald F. Boesch of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science said that since the flooding of New Orleans billions have been invested in improving the safety of the area, but little has been done to mitigate the deterioration of the coast and climate change. He suggested that the survival of New Orleans will strongly depend on our success in limiting climate change. Allen Davis, director of the Maryland Water Resources Research Center at the University of Maryland, said the infrastructure systems in this country are built with an assumption that the most extreme conditions they will face are stagnant. With climate change, he added, the extremes will only become more damaging and will worsen an already stressed infrastructure. Davis suggested water management methods could help to lessen the impacts of these changes. Peter M. Groffman, senior scientist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, stressed the importance of preventing sea level rise and also suggested the use of urban storm water management. Nancy B Grimm of Arizona State University looks at climate change from an ecological standpoint and suggested that sustainable solutions to urban challenges will be most effective if based on ecological principles and look at the connections between city dwellers and the global scale. Douglas Farr, president of Farr Associates, suggested that one way for cities to have an effect on climate change is to develop LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) neighborhoods. This system is the first national system for neighborhood design that incorporates green building with urbanism and smart growth. ACS Regional Climate Models Briefing (9/09) The impacts of climate change are already under way and are causing problems worldwide. As these changes occur, it will be important to be able to anticipate them. The Nested Regional Climate Model (NRCM) is used to predict the changes at a local scale that are brought about by climate change. It combines the strengths of the Community Climate System Model (CCSM), and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. It will be useful for planning for things like future droughts, heat waves, sea level rise, coastal storms, and species movement and loss. This tool is an important aid for policymakers struggling to adapt policies and those in industry trying to develop equipment to withstand the changing climate. The model is an initiative of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). For more information and to view a video webcast of the briefing, go here. Senators Want Other Pollutants in Climate Change Bill (8/09) The new standards would be in place from until 2014, and then reduced further through 2019. National sulfur dioxide emissions would be limited to 3.5 million tons per year through 2014 and then to 1.5 million tons per year through 2019. After 2019, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could lower the allowed emissions level as needed. The nitrous oxides emissions standards would be different depending on the region of the U.S. The Eastern states would have similar allowances as the CAIR program and would be called Zone 1, while 16 western states would form Zone 2. Zone 1 would be allowed emissions totaling 1.39 million tons from 2012 to 2014, 1.3 million tons through 2019, and then the EPA Administrator could again change the limit as reductions are needed. The emission standards for Zone 2 would start at 400,000 tons in 2012 and be reduced to 320,000 tons at the end of 2014. Limits on mercury emissions standards would only start in 2015 to reduce emissions by 90 percent. The air pollution bill would also change the cap and trade program under CAIR to an auction system for allowances directed by the EPA. Petition Demands EPA Review of Climate Science (8/09) The petition may delay EPA efforts to finalize an endangerment finding it published in April 2009. The EPA proposes that atmospheric greenhouse gases (specifically carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) endanger the public health and welfare. These gases are thus defined as pollutants under the Clean Air Act and should be restricted and monitored according to provisions in the Clean Air Act. Emissions of these gases for new motor vehicles would also be included as pollutants. The key point being brought forth by the Chamber is relatively narrow, questioning only a specific finding and is summed up by the following statement written in the petition: “no issue should be more important in deciding whether to make an endangerment finding than the question of whether higher global temperatures will lead to higher death rates in the United States.” The Chamber points to the June 2009 U.S. Global Change Research Group report entitled “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,” which projects a smaller risk of fatalities in the U.S. in the winter because of a lower potential for people to suffer from hypothermia or accidents on ice. According to an E&E Daily report, the EPA Deputy Press Secretary Brendan Gilfillan believes the petition has no basis because EPA based its proposed endangerment finding on “the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare.” EPA is now considering the petition. If EPA denies the petition, the Chamber would have 60 days to challenge the decision. The Chamber of Commerce has indicated that it would file a lawsuit against any endangerment finding filed by the EPA. The petition and the potential for further challenges mean that any endangerment findings issued by the EPA will undergo significant public scrutiny of the science behind the rulings. It also means that EPA will not be able to enact other new rules being proposed to limit emissions that are based on the endangerment finding. Indeed one day after the Chamber’s petition was filed, the EPA and Department of Transportation announced that draft rules imposing the first-ever greenhouse gas emissions standards on vehicles was delivered to the White House. Geoengineering in News and Policy (8/09) The study group published their report, “Climate engineering responses to climate emergencies” through a new non-profit called Novim. The cloud whitening idea uses aerosols to reflect shortwave solar radiation back into space. The report cites the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption in 1991, which cooled the planet, as an exemplary model. The idea is projected to cost somewhere between $8 and $30 billion depending on the method of implementation. Like some other geoengineering ideas, cloud whitening would seek to cool the planet without dealing directly with the underlying cause. There is little knowledge of the consequences and critics speculate that such an idea could lead to droughts and other negative side effects. Novim, based in Santa Barbara, California, is a non-profit scientific corporation that convenes small collaborative groups of the world’s leading experts to identify and analyze scientific and technological issues of global importance. Its findings are published online and uploaded to scientific archives. Results will also be made available in the form of classroom study guides, videos and perspective summaries aimed at policy makers and the public in general. New Climate Researchers Invited to Symposium (7/09) The program is supported by the National Science Foundation and scientific societies (including AGI Member Societies, AGU and ASLO). Survey Assesses Scientist and Public Opinions (7/09) The survey also asked scientists about the scientific knowledge of the public. While two thirds of the public have a high opinion of scientists, 85 percent of scientists think that public ignorance of science is a problem. The study evaluated the scientific knowledge of the public and compared it to the scientists’ knowledge. Questions about evolution found that 32 percent of the public believe that humans and other living things have evolved over time, as opposed to 87 percent of scientists. A similar disparity is found for global warming, with 49 percent of the public and 84 percent of scientists believing that humans are the cause. However, there is some agreement between scientists and the public when it comes to funding of science research. Both groups say that government investment is essential for scientific progress. Majorities of each group also agree that advances in medicine and life science are the most important advances in science. Another recent survey by two scientists at the University of Illinois in Chicago polled 3,146 scientists on their opinion of climate change. Dr. Peter Doran and former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman presented their findings in the American Geophysical Union’s publication Eos in January. The results showed that 90 percent of the polled scientists believe that mean global temperature has risen since 1800, and 82 percent agree that human activity is a significant contributing factor. Of the climate specialists polled, 97 percent agreed that humans have contributed to the mean global temperature rise. The study concluded that there is an overall consensus among scientists that humans are causing climate change. The full survey report by the Pew Research Center can be found here. Climate Legislation Work Ongoing in Senate (7/09) More information about the progress of Senate debate and legislation on climate change is available from the committee web site: http://epw.senate.gov/ AGI summaries of hearings on climate change in the House and the Senate are available at: http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis111/climate_hearings.html NAS Climate Change Meeting (7/09) The NAS website for past and upcoming meetings on America’s Choices on Climate Change can be found at: http://americasclimatechoices.org/events.shtml ESA “Water Resources in the West” Briefing (7/09) There will not be enough water in the West to satisfy all human and environmental needs in the future as a result of growing population and climate change. The likely effects of less water will be reduced water quality, smaller bird and fish migration corridors, and contracted trout and salmon fisheries. It will be necessary to engage in adaptation and management of watersheds on the local and regional scales to maximize the benefits of the water that will remain. Ecosystem services will suffer in the coming decades due to more severe droughts which will become the norm. Goods and services related to drinking water, energy, fiber production and food production will be threatened. Policy options exist in water pricing, agriculture policy, and housing policy that will allow us to maximize the benefits of these services. Outdoor urban water use in the West needs to be reduced and the smart plant ecology choices in those urban cities would curb usage. Considerations must also be made of the tradeoff between water conservation and climate since irrigation makes cities cooler but takes more water out of the watershed. National Climate Service Bill Passes House Committee (6/09) Drought Discussion at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (6/09) The second speaker was Dr. Michael Hanemann, the Chancellor’s Professor at the Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics and the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Hanemann spoke about the drought in California and the current state of the water supply system there. His main point was that management of the water system needs to be organized in a way that takes climate change into account. In California, temperature affects the supply more than precipitation, because snowpack defines the amount of water flowing through the streams in the spring. He explained that the water system is decentralized and there is no planning or coordination of water supply. He emphasized that these problems need to be fixed before the temperature rises and water becomes scarce, suggesting that the government regulate the distribution of water. Global Change Research Program Releases New Report (6/09) The report is a product of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), a 13 member interagency government program established by Congress in 1990 to help understand, assess, predict, and respond to global change. The congressional mandate stated that the USGCRP must release a global change impact assessment every four years, and an annual report to Congress. The first national assessment was released in 2000, followed by a series of 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products. This newest report is a comprehensive look at climate change impacts, drawing from the past USGCRP assessments, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and other research. The report clearly and simplistically shows dramatic changes taking place, and how they will affect people and industry. It shows widespread changes that are happening now, making the point that global change is a current concern for everyone. There are examples of adaption measures taken by various communities, in order to give the audience ideas of ways to mitigate the negative impacts. The report does not make policy recommendations. Instead it emphasizes the importance and consequence of choices made today on the severity of the changes in the future as method of informing decision making. The full report, factsheets, and summaries are available for download from the USGCRP website. Weather Mitigation Research Bill Approved (5/09) The bill is based on recommendations of a 2003 National Academies report entitled “Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research”. National Climate Service Program Proposed (5/09) The “National Climate Service Act of 2009” (H.R. 2407) was proposed by the House Science and Technology Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN), and was unanimously approved by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee on May 13, 2009. Now H.R. 2407 awaits full committee approval, and is anticipated to be marked-up the first week of June. The committee is trying to keep pace with the Waxman-Markey climate and energy legislation (H.R. 2454), which also proposes a National Climate Service. The Waxman-Markey bill was approved by the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee before the Memorial Day recess and now awaits a vote by the full House. House Climate Change Legislation Update (5/09) Only one Republican, Mary Bono Mack (CA), voted for the measure, signifying the continued partisan schism on climate change and energy legislation. Amendments proposed by Republicans that would end a cap and trade program if there are job losses or energy price increases were defeated during the markup. Republicans still contend that the bill will be a burden to businesses and families alike. Many Democrats that voted for the bill acknowledged that more work needs to be done to make the bill more palatable. House members still want to address issues regarding speculation in a carbon cap and trade market, indirect land use changes caused by greater biofuels production, and adding more agricultural offsets. Other House committees are interested in holding their own markup of related legislation including Ways and Means, Agriculture, Science and Technology, and Natural Resources. House members will continue to work out the details of some of the provisions in the bill after returning from the Memorial Day recess. The Senate is closely following the progress of the bill, which the House hopes it will use as a template for companion legislation. So far the Senate has not begun any work on legislation that has similar climate change measures to the House bill. Instead the Senate is focused on a separate energy bill and parts of the Senate energy bill do overlap with H.R. 2452 NOAA Shares Climate Knowledge On The Hill (5/09) EPA Rules That GHGs Are Hazardous To Your Health (4/09) Though the report does not suggest any specific regulations, the implications are huge. Since the EPA has jurisdiction of pollutants included in the Clean Air Act, the findings give the EPA official responsibility for controlling GHG emissions. The EPA could have complete power over limiting vehicle emissions and potentially imposing caps on industry unless Congress passes legislation to tackle these issues. There has been a push in Congress to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation, but it is uncertain whether there is enough support yet to pass such a bill. Some see the ruling as motivation for Congress to move faster in their consideration of climate and energy bills, especially amid fears that the EPA will use this rule to regulate everything from cars to cows. If the EPA did undertake such a broad and complex set of new regulations and standards, it could easily be overwhelmed. However these are just speculations since the EPA has not put forth any actual rules, and will not announce any, until after the public comment period for the proposal is over on June 23, 2009. For more information on the findings and submitting comments, visit the EPA website. House Unveils Climate Change Bill (3/09) House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans met with committee chairman Henry Waxman and Markey on April 2 to discuss the draft. Afterwards, many Republican committee members told the media they are opposed to the cap-and-trade scheme in title 3. The bill is ambitiously scheduled for a full committee markup on May 11 and while discussions and debates are likely to be contentious and significant, some version of the measure is expected to be approved by the committee. Democratic House leadership has promised to have a climate change bill vote by the full House by Memorial Day. Details of the draft as well as summaries and comments of both parties are available from the House Energy and Commerce Committee web site. EPA Fast-Tracks GHG Decision and Proposes Mandatory Reporting (3/09) Another speculated reason was the supposed goal to release the review by April 2, the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that started this process. Jackson has since made it clear that April 2 is too soon for a decision and that she only wanted to be mindful of that date. So far the decision is planned to show that GHGs affect human welfare through changes to temperature, air quality, crops, and the spread of diseases. It will also lump together the six primary GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) into one group following the strategy of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for creating a “common currency.” The EPA also proposed a rule on March 10 requiring large, industrial GHG emitters to report emissions under the Clean Air Act. The goal is to start a national system to obtain comprehensive and accurate data on the amount of GHGs being emitted both upstream (by suppliers of the fuels) and the direct emitters. Although indirect emissions and small businesses will not be counted, the ruling will cover 85 to 90 percent of U.S. emissions. The first annual report will be submitted to the EPA in 2011 for calendar year 2010 with an estimated annual cost to industry of $127 million, after an initial $160 million the first year. There will be a public hearing in Sacramento, CA and Arlington, VA to discuss this proposed ruling in early April. The ruling is also open to public comment. For more information and to submit comments, go to the EPA GHG Emissions website. USGS Addresses Unknowns about Carbon Storage (3/09) The assessment will focus on geologic formations that are “technically accessible” with today’s drilling and injection technologies and can hold liquefied carbon for over 10,000 years. While presenting the report, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar stated that “the report will help us find the best places in the country for this type of carbon sequestration,” which is a “critical first step” in determining how much carbon can be stored in the subsurface. The USGS assessment strategy draws on previous work done by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that estimated 143 billion tons of carbon dioxide could be stored in depleted reservoirs and saline aquifers. The USGS noted that more needs to be learned about the behavior of carbon injected into the subsurface to help refine details in storage potential for different types of geologic formations. EPA Close To GHG Emission Ruling (2/09) Legislatures in Two States Look to Implement Carbon Sequestration Bills (2/09) Wyoming, the nation’s largest producer of coal, is even further along with developing regulations for a carbon sequestration program with the passage of several bills in the state that continue to outline carbon storage rights. In 2008, Wyoming became the first state to address carbon storage by passing legislation that stated surface owners also own underground storage rights. The two states carbon sequestration legislation mark a continuing trend of state initiatives to combat carbon emissions and other global warming issues as cohesive federal legislation fails to pass. Climate Change Science Program Issues Last Five of Twenty One Reports (1/09) Congress and the new Obama Administration are likely to seek changes to CCSP or a re-organization of climate research to meet the requirements of the Global Change Research Act or enact new legislation to develop a more effective strategy to meeting national goals. All of the climate change science reports and more information about CCSP is available here. Outlook for Climate Change Legislation (1/09) Over in the Senate, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee has pledged to have a climate bill out of her committee before the United Nations Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December. Senator Boxer in a press conference on February 3, 2009 indicated that she has not tried to coordinate any legislation with Waxman or the House Committee, but they might try to get together later this year. In the press conference, Senator Boxer announced six broad principles of the bill. The principles include: 1. Reduce emissions to levels guided by science; 2. Set short and long term emissions targets that are certain and enforceable; 3. Ensure that state and local entities continue pioneering efforts on global warming; 4. Establish a transparent and accountable market-based system; 5. Use revenues from the carbon market for consumers, research and technology, assistance to states and local entities, assistance to workers and businesses, ecosystem health and preservation and work with the international community; and 6. Ensure a level playing field within the global community. Waxman has not held a specific press conference on his plans for climate legislation, but in response to media questions he has called for quick action. Waxman says that uncertainty about emissions reductions is hurting industries by delaying plans and investments for the future. On January 15, 2009, Waxman held a hearing on the growing consensus of business for action on climate change. There were 14 witnesses from industry and environmental groups who are part of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. Among the executives were the chairmen of ConocoPhillips, General Electric, DuPont and electric utilities Exelon, NRG Energy Inc. and Duke Energy. Environmental groups included Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Conservancy and World Resources Institute. In general, the witnesses endorsed a cap-and-trade system, but wanted a longer time frame, asking for 80 percent greenhouse gas reductions by 2050 bringing emissions back to 1990 levels. Waxman has previously supported a more aggressive and ambitious target of 80 percent reductions by 2030. President Obama has supported 80 percent reductions by 2050 and this seems to be a likely starting point for the House bill. President Obama has also called for auctioning all of the emission allowances and not giving industry any free allowances. These and many other details must be worked out by the Senate and House committees and then brought forward to both chambers for floor debates and votes. Such a process will take some time, but expectations are high for climate bills by the end of the year. For more information about the U.S. Climate Action Partnership and their advice to policymakers please visit: http://www.us-cap.org/ It is now widely accepted by the scientific community and by a growing
number of policymakers that human activities, such as the burning
of fossil fuels and deforestation, are increasing atmospheric concentrations
of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" (GHG). The
potential consequences of such alterations to the Earth's heat and
radiation balance are the source of considerable debate. However,
Congress has begun to focus more attention on the issue of climate
change over the past several years. As concern about global warming
continues to mount and as states and cities develop policies to deal
with the issue at the regional scale, Congress has come under increased pressure to address the issue at the federal level. A key factor in spurring action in Congress has been the publication
of several critical reports on climate change. The Stern Review, published
in October 2006 by Sir Nicholas Stern, head of Britain's Government
Economic Service, analyzes the economic impact of climate change.
The report suggests that global warming could "shrink
the global economy by 20 percent. Action now, however, could mitigate
the consequences of climate change at the cost of just 1 percent of
the global gross domestic product. An increasing number of American businesses are jumping aboard the climate change wagon. In February of 2007, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (U.S. CAP), a coalition of leading corporations and environmental organizations, testified before Congress. The membership of U.S. CAP, which includes organizations such as Alcoa, BP America, Inc., DuPont, Duke Energy, Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Natural Resources Defense Council, has attracted Congress's interest because of the leadership role the groups have in their respective industries. Additionally, they have united to forge a consensus view regarding action on climate, providing specific recommendations to reduce GHG emissions. However, the release of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report in November 2007
created perhaps the biggest waves in Congress. Based on new research
over the past six years, hundreds of scientists representing 113
countries, agree that "the observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely (<5%) that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely (>90%) that it is not due to known natural causes alone." The conclusions of the IPCC report has pushed Congress way from debating the science of climate change toward finding solutions to address the issue. In the 110th Congress a comprehensive cap-and-trade approach has been the focal point with various proposals being discussed. The most prominent of the proposals, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S.3036), was debated on the Senate floor this June and represents a shift toward legislative action.
Sources: Environment & Energy Daily and Greenwire. Contributed by Corina Cerovski-Darriau, Government Affairs staff; Merilie Reynolds, AGI/AAPG Fall 2008 Intern; Rachel Potter, 2009 AGI/AIPG Summer Intern; Stephanie Praus, 2009 AGI/AIPG Summer Intern; Mollie Pettit, 2009 AGI/AAPG Fall Intern; and Joey Fiore, 2009 AGI/AIPG Summer Intern Background section includes material from AGI's Climate Change Policy for the 110th Congress. Please send any comments or requests for information to AGI Government Affairs Program. Last updated on February 17, 2010. |
Printable Version| Information Services | | Geoscience Education | | Public Policy | | Environmental Geoscience | | Publications | | Workforce | | AGI Events | ||
|
© 2010 All rights reserved. American Geological Institute,
4220 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22302-1502. | ||||||||
