The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: carbon
U.S. Renews Pledge To Cut Emissions 26 To 28 Percent By 2025

U.S. Renews Pledge To Cut Emissions 26 To 28 Percent By 2025

Washington (AFP) – The U.S. government on Tuesday formally pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent over 2005 levels within the next decade, ahead of a major climate conference later this year.

President Barack Obama made the same pledge during a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping  in November.

But this formal submission to the United Nations commits this and future administrations to the target.

“For decades, we’ve known why global average temperatures are rising,” said White House advisor Brian Deese, announcing the goal.

“It’s past time we heed these warnings. It’s past time for the world to take action.”

In December, the United Nations will hold the latest round of global climate talks in Paris.

The aim is to reach a global accord that would go some of the way toward limiting the rise in global temperatures.

Countries aim to limit average global temperatures to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels.

“With today’s submission of the U.S. target, countries accounting for more than half of total carbon pollution from the energy sector have submitted or announced what they will do in the post-2020 period to combat climate change,” said Deese.

Environmental groups gave the announcement a cautious welcome.

“This is a big commitment for the United States, but on its own the current offer clearly isn’t enough to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius,” said Jamie Henn of 350.org.

He urged the Obama administration to curb new fossil fuel development.

Oxfam said the announcement was “a critical step forward in transitioning to a clean energy economy.”

French foreign minister Laurent Fabius welcomed the announcement, saying it confirmed the United States and Obama’s engagement in the tackling climate change.

But the praise was not universal.

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell warned America’s international partners that the U.S. pledge could be reversed.

He said that even if Obama’s domestic measures to implement the deal “were fully implemented, the United States could not meet the targets laid out in this proposed new plan.”

“Our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal.”

The U.S. government formally pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent over 2005 levels within the next decade, ahead of a major climate conference later this year (AFP/David McNew)

EPA Rule On Power Plant Emissions Faces Formidable Hurdle In Supreme Court

EPA Rule On Power Plant Emissions Faces Formidable Hurdle In Supreme Court

By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Twenty-five years in the making, a new nationwide rule is set to take effect this spring that will sharply restrict coal and oil-fired power plants from releasing mercury, arsenic and other hazardous pollutants into the air and, eventually, into rivers and lakes.

But the rule faces a final and formidable hurdle when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday from lawyers for the coal and power industries, who say it may be “the most costly rule” ever adopted under the Clean Air Act.

They will be joined by lawyers for Michigan and 19 other Republican-led states, who call the rule on mercury and other air pollutants a regulatory “overreach” by the Obama administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The combined case of Michigan vs. EPA poses yet another test of whether the conservative-leaning high court will defer to far-reaching regulations issued by the Obama administration.

Since the Reagan era of the 1980s, the high court has said judges should uphold regulations so long as they reflect a reasonable interpretation of the law. But the court’s conservatives have been increasingly skeptical of President Barack Obama’s regulations.

Last month, the justices sounded closely split on whether to uphold a 2012 tax regulation issued under the Affordable Care Act that allows government subsidies to be paid to enrollees in every state, and not just in the dozen or so that run their own insurance exchanges.

If the court rejects that regulation, it could badly undercut Obama’s health care law and cut off subsidies for millions of low- and middle-income Americans.

The court may face a similar decision in the months ahead on whether to uphold Obama’s executive action on immigration. The action would offer work permits and a shield from deportation to several million immigrants who live in the country illegally. A federal judge in Texas has temporarily blocked it, saying the president overstepped his regulatory authority.

Supporters of the new toxics rule say it is vital to ensuring public health. Mercury is highly toxic and builds up in the food chain. It is particularly dangerous for pregnant women and developing fetuses. Other newly restricted pollutants are believed to trigger asthma attacks and are blamed for several thousand early deaths each year.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said the rule would “result in rate increases for citizens across the country and threatens the reliability of the electricity grid by forcing the closure of many power plants.”

Environmental lawyers were surprised when the court agreed to hear the industry challenge to the EPA’s mercury rule, which was adopted in 2012 and upheld last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.

“It was very hard to understand why they are hearing this,” said Jim Pew, a lawyer for Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm based in San Francisco. “I don’t think it’s a close case.” He thinks the EPA has shown the restrictions are badly needed.

Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, but lawmakers later became troubled by the slow pace of removing hazardous pollutants from the air. In 1990, they amended the law and told the EPA to study more than 180 toxic substances, including mercury, arsenic and several acid gases. If these substances were shown to harm human health and could be removed from the air, the law said, then the EPA “shall regulate” major sources of these pollutants where it is “appropriate and necessary.”

After a lengthy study, the EPA in the final year of the Clinton administration said new regulation of the coal and oil-fired power plants was appropriate because they were the largest source by far of mercury and other hazardous pollutants.

But in 2005, the EPA under the George W. Bush administration backed off and said power plants could escape strict regulation if pollution were reduced through other means.

Several downwind states sued, and an appeals court ruled in 2008 that the EPA’s retreat violated the law.

That ruling put the matter in the hands of the incoming Obama administration. The EPA proposed new power plant regulations in 2011. They are to take full effect next month, although some power plants have been granted an extension to comply.

The rule sets emissions standards for about 600 electric power plants across the nation. The new standards will force about a 90 percent reduction in emissions of mercury and other toxic metals and gases.

Although nearly every state is affected, the rule will hit hardest in states of the upper Midwest and the South, which rely heavily on coal to produce electricity.

In their appeal, lawyers for the coal industry and the Republican states say the EPA ignored the $10 billion-a-year compliance cost, which would include refurbishing or closing old power plants. Supporters of the rule estimate that it will create more than $37 billion a year in savings when considering the cost of early deaths and lost work days because of asthma.

Meanwhile, attorneys for 17 states, mostly led by Democrats, and several cities joined in support of the EPA.

They include California and New York, as well as Chicago and Baltimore. They said their states have regulated power plants, but their residents are still exposed to mercury and other toxic substances from the air and water.

Environmentalists are dismayed that the mercury rule has become caught up in the partisan divide.

“Clean air is a core American value — in red, purple and blue states,” said Vickie Patton, a lawyer for the Environmental Defense Fund in Colorado. “These protections should have been put in place years ago.”

Photo: Robert S. Donovan via Flickr

Obama Orders 40 Percent Reduction In Carbon Emissions By U.S. Agencies

Obama Orders 40 Percent Reduction In Carbon Emissions By U.S. Agencies

By Toluse Olorunnipa, Bloomberg News (TNS)

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama ordered the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 2008 levels over the next ten years by shifting to renewable energy sources such as solar power.

The executive order signed by Obama Thursday builds on a 2010 directive from the White House requiring 35 U.S. agencies to limit their energy consumption to help combat climate change. Private companies that contract with the federal government have also agreed to pursue emissions reductions in concert with the most recent directive.

As the single largest consumer of energy in the U.S., the federal government can help create a “virtuous cycle,” driving down costs and reducing environmental damage, Obama said. With little support in Congress for his environmental initiatives, Obama has used executive orders to try to limit U.S. gas emissions.

“We thought it was important for us to lead by example,” Obama said Thursday while meeting executives from International Business Machines Corp., Honeywell International Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., and other companies at the Energy Department. “We’re proving that it is possible to grow our economy robustly while at the same time doing the right thing for our environment and tackling climate change in a serious way.”

The administration has been trying to build momentum for an international accord on cutting greenhouse gas emissions at a summit in Paris at the end of this year. Having won an agreement from China to cap emissions, Obama has been challenging other nations to follow suit.

Obama spoke with the company leaders after touring a set of solar panels on the roof of the Energy Department in Washington.

The companies, including General Electric Co., Hewlett-Packard, and Northrop Grumman Corp., pledged to increase the use of renewable energy. IBM setting a goal of reducing carbon emissions 35 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. The White House released a scorecard Thursday tracking the emissions disclosures for companies that supply goods and services to the federal government.

Chris Warren, a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research in Washington, said Obama’s move “will have no impact on global temperatures.”

“The president is clearly trying to boost his climate credentials to appease the national environmental lobby, regardless of what it means for the average American,” said Warren, whose organization supports limited government regulation of utilities.

Under Obama’s order, federal agencies will be required to obtain 25 percent of their total energy from renewable sources by 2025. The order targets the 360,000 federal buildings across the U.S., requiring a 2.5 percent annual reduction in energy use for the next decade. The federal government’s fleet of 650,000 vehicles will be required to reduce per-mile carbon emissions by 30 percent.

The goal of reducing emissions by 40 percent already includes the 17 percent reduction achieved since 2008, said Brian Deese, a senior adviser to Obama. Reaching the goal would save taxpayers $18 billion per year and would be equivalent to taking 5.5 million cars off the road, Deese said.

Photo: A coal power plant in New Mexico (Glennia via Flickr)

U.S. Sees Voluntary Emissions Cuts As Key To A Climate Change Accord

U.S. Sees Voluntary Emissions Cuts As Key To A Climate Change Accord

By Neela Banerjee, Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — The United States is championing a new international approach to cutting greenhouse gases that offers the best chance of prompting countries to take action to avert the worst effects of global warming, the nation’s chief climate negotiator said Monday.

The comments by the State Department’s Todd Stern came as United Nations negotiations began in Peru to develop the framework for an international accord to curtail heat-trapping emissions and adapt to changes already occurring on the planet. The final agreement is expected to be signed in Paris next December.

Despite more than 20 years of international discussions about addressing climate change, the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are higher than ever. Efforts have stumbled, in part, over the stringency and feasibility of emissions cuts. In the past, big polluters such as the United States were mandated by a U.N. accord to make deep cuts, a top-down approach that Congress rejected.

This time, the U.S. is backing a bottom-up plan that lets each country determine the emissions cuts it will make, Stern said. Still, countries would have to accept other binding conditions, such as a schedule for announcing planned cuts, and uniform and transparent reporting standards. Further, countries would have to agree to no backsliding: Emissions targets set every five or ten years would have to be increasingly more ambitious.

Though a plan for voluntary cuts sounded “counterintuitive” to making progress on emissions, Stern pointed out that past approaches did not work.

“The reality of it is that no one was able to come up with a different way of going about it,” Stern said in a meeting with reporters. “You could assign every country a particular reduction that on paper looks like a perfect result and then you can’t get agreement on it. This is a way to get everyone in. It’s not going to be perfect, but it’s a strong start that would get better and better.”

There are no sanctions against countries that do not offer emissions cuts or fail to abide by them. But the effect of global warming is growing clearer, and countries that previously sat on the sidelines, most notably China, have begun to act. The hope is that a kind of international peer pressure will lead states to cut emissions.

Scientists warn that the window is closing on the measures nations can take to slow the increase in average global temperatures and avert the worst effects of global warming.

The talks in Peru could benefit from fresh momentum, in large part as a result of steps the U.S. has taken over the last month. In early November, President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping jointly announced ambitious plans to limit heat-trapping emissions by 2030 by their countries, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas polluters.

Days later, Obama pledged $3 billion to an international climate fund aimed at helping developing countries prepare for and slow the effects of global warming. The money would go to the U.N. Green Climate Fund, an integral part of the international effort to craft an agreement to address climate change.

The fund, created in 2011, asks industrialized countries and their private sectors, which account for most of the greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere over the last century, to help developing countries shift to low-carbon fuel and adapt to the effects of climate change. Research has shown that the poorest countries that emitted the least greenhouse gases, such as those in Africa, stand to suffer the most damage from global warming.

The announcement with China and the climate fund pledge were challenged by Obama’s Republican critics on Capitol Hill, who have pledged to make it a priority to roll back his measures on the environment when they assume the majority in Congress next year.

Stern said the president’s budget proposal, due in February, would ask Congress for $3 billion over four years to fulfill the climate fund pledge.

The commitment is meant to follow a $2 billion pledge President George W. Bush made in 2008 to a Climate Investment Fund.

“Funding for climate change is always challenging, and I expect it will continue to be,” Stern said, “but it’s also something that has gotten done at the end of the day on a bipartisan basis. There will be very, very strong support coming from the White House for it.”

AFP Photo/Sebastian CastaÑeda