While neither president was compelled to disclose their final positions going into Copenhagen’s Climate Change Summit next month nor did they declare any numerical emissions targets, they publicly agreed that the outcome at Copenhagen “should include emission reductions targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries.” Of course they acknowledged that responsibilities will be different for every country and based on respective capabilities of those countries.

What peaked my attention in all of this is that the U.S. and China both agreed that whatever happens in Copenhagen the “outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries; promote technology development, dissemination and transfer; pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change[].” So the U.S. and China agree with financial assistance to developing countries the subject of a recent blog of mine about Third World countries demanding climate reparations in the form of financial assistance from developed countries. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/11/u-s-out-of-step-with-climate-debt-issues/.

I’m not sure whether President Obama or President Hu of China agrees with the concept of these climate reparations per se but they did agree on the financial assistance to poorer countries. I’m just wondering how Obama is going to break this news to climate skeptics divided again along party lines when these skeptics won’t even admit man is creating the climate problem. As I said, many in the U.S. are in a misstep with the rest of the world concerning climate change.
Meanwhile, the two presidents hashed out quite a cooperative between the U.S. and China on many fronts. The article listed six initial elements:

1) Establishment of the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center

2) The launch of the U.S.-China Electric Vehicles Initiative

3) The launch of a new U.S.-China Energy Efficiency Action Plan

4) The pledge to promote cooperation on cleaner uses of coal, including large-scale carbon capture and storage demonstration projects

5) The launch of a new U.S.-China Shale Gas Resource Initiative

6) U.S.-China Energy Cooperation Program

There is more launching going on with that list then at Cape Kennedy, which is all well and good since so many arguments that keep the U.S. from moving forward on climate initiatives center around pointing the finger at China’s pollution. But considering Americans are contrary, and big polluting industries are gearing up for a fight against cleaning up our act, it’s going to be a big upward struggle to get moving—China or no China.

Read the details: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2009/2009-11-17-01.asp.

While the U.S. is still talking industry friendly carbon offsets and emissions trading, a growing portion of the rest of the undeveloped world has something completely different in mind. In a nutshell, they resent us and blame the U.S. and other industrialized countries for the climate change problems they are ALREADY experiencing. Undeveloped countries will be presenting the concept of “climate debt” at the summit. They want “rich countries to pay reparations to poor countries for the climate crisis.” This is a radical departure from where the U.S. is right now. Heck, I’m still arguing with TEFLON COATED DENIERS that mankind is indeed producing too much pollution causing accelerated climate change. Deniers simply will not admit that maybe 7 billion people and their consumption habits like millions of food animals, and industrial pollution, plus deforestation due to population increase just might be over-polluting a closed environment no longer equipped to clean up effectively.

The article explained that the U.S. thinks of climate change as a “we” problem, but a growing number of countries view climate change as a problem created predominantly by the “few.” The coalition of Latin American and African governments stress big differences between who caused the crisis and those who suffer it the most right now.
The chief economist for the World Bank says the equation amounts to “75 to 80% of developing countries suffering the most even though they contribute collectively only about 1/3 of greenhouse gases.” The article further reported, “Developed countries, which represent less than 20 percent of the world’s population, have emitted almost 75 percent of all greenhouse-gas pollution that is now destabilizing the climate.” Yes science has a way of measuring pollution output now, where it came from, and what it costs in real money. This in and of itself should put a crimp in the deniers argument that mankind isn’t the culprit, it’s just nature. But…

So as the article stated, “Climate debt is about who will pick up the bill.” It went on to explain:

The grass-roots movement behind the proposal argues that all the costs associated with adapting to a more hostile ecology — everything from building stronger sea walls to switching to cleaner, more expensive technologies — are the responsibility of the countries that created the crisis. ‘What we need is not something we should be begging for but something that is owed to us, because we are dealing with a crisis not of our making,’ says Lidy Nacpil, one of the coordinators of Jubilee South, an international organization that has staged demonstrations to promote climate reparations. ‘Climate debt is not a matter of charity.’

The U.S. alone, which comprises barely five percent of the global population, contributes 25 percent of all carbon emissions. And while developing countries like China and India have also begun to spew large amounts of carbon dioxide, the reasoning goes, they are not equally responsible for the cost of the cleanup, because they have contributed only a small fraction of the 200 years of cumulative pollution that has caused the crisis.

Did you notice that China is considered a developing country? The U.S. tends to put China up there as a super power but truth is China still has more underdeveloped rural areas of population than not. And while they may still be building coal fired plants, they are emerging as a world leader in wind and solar, and are in the midst of building the largest smart grid in the world. We gripe about lost jobs in the U.S. The politics that keeps us from moving forward for renewable energy has cost us the jobs shipped to China to produce the parts for our largest wind farm in Texas. It wasn’t just about cheaper labor or materials in this instance. We simply didn’t have the labor in place, or the manufacturing facilities.

What should really make us sit up and take notice is that the idea of “climate debt” is “supported by the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change — ratified by 192 countries, including the United States.” The framework not only asserts that “the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries,” it clearly states that actions taken to fix the problem should be made “on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities.” Uh oh. They’ve got us in writing on this.

But Angelica Navarro, the chief climate negotiator for Bolivia, pushed the notion farther at U.N. climate negotiations in June in Bonn, Germany presenting the argument that not only are poorer countries already suffering the effects of climate change but in this new environmental arena they will not be able to enjoy the advantages of cheap fossil fuels in order to grow as the U.S. and other developed countries were able to do. They will bear a much higher cost burden to grow economically. But Navarro just didn’t point fingers. She presented a 3-point solution.Rich countries need to:

• Pay the costs associated with adapting to a changing climate
• Make deep cuts to their own emission levels “to make atmospheric space available” for the developing world
• Pay Third World countries to leapfrog over fossil fuels and go straight to cleaner alternatives.

Third World countries are tired of promises. They see what many of us see that the U.S. is going to stall on climate change along political lines. These countries cannot afford to wait around. And the list is growing with 49 countries taking their demands to Copenhagen in December with at least 240 environmental and development organizations calling for the same. Germany has recently acknowledged the concept of climate debt by paying Ecuador millions over a course of years to leave a huge cache of oil in the ground under Yasuni National Park part of the Amazonian rain forest. Other European countries are interested in following suit.

So we have developed countries already paying Third World countries not to produce more fossil fuel but to preserve environmental assets like forests. Meanwhile, some U.S. citizens and of course our massively wealthy fossil fuel industry look ill prepared to except not only the blame for much of the world’s pollution but even the concept that mankind has indeed caused environmental problems at all.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30841581/climate_rage/3.

New administrator declaring that global warming pollution “endangers” Americans’ health and well being
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/04/epa-administrator-issues-proposed-ruling-on-global-warming/.

Being ordered by the courts to come up with mercury emission standards in two years.

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/02/stricter-mercury-rules-on-the-way/.

Latest air study showed many U.S. cities flunking horribly
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/04/us-cities-recent-air-quality-reports%e2%80%94not-good/.

Non-existence when it comes to enforcement of the clean water act.
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2008/12/collapse-of-national-clean-water-act-enforcement-program/.

Plus, the largest and longest government report on the affects of global warming on the U.S. was completed and predicted bad consequences.
http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/2009/07/predictions-from-completed-government-report-on-global-warming/.

Senator Voinovich (R) Ohio and Senator Inhofe (R) Oklahoma put their request for the EPA study in writing, and although Voinovich read this request, Inhofe refused to expound on what his party wanted but reiterated it was in writing and left. The reason for leaving is that there is an (EPW) Environment and Public Works rule that at least two members of the minority have to be present before opening a markup, but it is not necessarily binding.

The funny part came when I actually listened to Senator Voinovich request the EPA do this modeling first so that Republicans can be informed with the latest reports. No wonder Inhofe didn’t want to expound. Voinovich ended up complaining about the EPA that when it did modeling before it used assumptions that were unrealistic. He said the EPA’s modeling is only as good as the assumptions built into it. What? Why would one request the EPA to do all this unnecessary work when one wasn’t satisfied with the EPA’s methodology to begin with? Is this the same type of convoluted request as wanting to be included then not showing up?

I state that the Republican senator’s request is unnecessary work because of the government’s recently completed and extensive global warming study that puts many parts of our country in a precarious position. And this same committee heard 54 witnesses on nine panels relative to climate change just last week. So there is already a large amount of climate change data available for review. Senator Boxer also brought in EPA officials to answer any questions the Republican senators might have. But a lot of good any of this important and recent information is when Republicans aren’t there to hear it.

Stall or no stall, the U.S. going to be surprised at the biggest gathering on climate change to date in Copenhagen this Decemeber because the scheme of things has changed. Cap and trade isn’t going to cut it anymore. There is much more at stake as the rest of the world is focusing on reparations by wealthy nations for the damage done. Stay Tuned.

Watch part of the committee meeting:

Senator Voinovich’s Request for EPA study

What’s up with this? The same satellite data from the UK Hadley Center used by SPPI for their July CO2 Report describes global temperatures falling fast since 2001,
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report
_july_09.pdf, yet Dr. Pope of the UK Hadley Center clearly sees warming trends specifically tied to human produced green house gases. The Climate Progress article goes on to state that even “the traditionally staid and conservative International Energy Agency annual noted in its World Energy Outlook…’Without a change in policy, the world is on a path for a rise in global temperature of up to 6C.”

The same article blames poor messaging by scientists, environmentalists, progressives and bad media coverage for leading the public to think there is a broad range of global warming that could take place. In other words, it’s no biggy. I have to admit I’ve heard more than one TV personality make fun of the fact that we’re only heating up a degree or two over a hundred years. Unfortunately that degree or two conclusion depends on massive and quick CO2 reductions, which just aren’t happening. And so confusion persists in the U.S. aided by conservatives and energy companies. In the meantime, lack of acting quickly to reduce CO2 emissions leads to a more realistic scenario of a 5C or 6C rise in temperature over the next century.

Do we really understand what that means because 6 degrees Celsius is close to 50 degrees Fahrenheit? And more than likely that rise isn’t going to happen evenly in 10-year increments. That’s a lot of heat considering the west suffered temps in the 90’s and 100’s this past summer. At 150 F that area would surely become a desert wasteland by the end of the century.

Many of us are suddenly worried about debt in the U.S., and that we are leaving too much to our children. That’s not all we’re leaving them. If we don’t start cleaning up our acts, debt will be the least of their worries.

How friendly is it? The rallies are nothing more than the tangible power of polluting industries like coal and oil that are backing them and strangling the rest of America from moving forward with clean energy jobs, work on new infrastructure to deliver that clean energy, and economic turnaround, not to mention the health aspects of cleaner air and water for generations to come.

It’s ludicrous to call this movement “friendly” to America at all. Who releases invisible, and sometimes odorless, but nevertheless harmful pollutants into the air that also ends up in our water? Who dumps chemicals, drugs, and makes huge environmental mistakes like oil spills and coal slurry spills into our waterways? And did it ever occur to anyone that when we’re assured from the different polluting entities that the parts per million or PPM that is being released is well within the limits of what is healthful for humans that there are 100’s of other industries saying likewise? So the safe limits of PPM of mercury, ammonia, carcinogens from incinerators, and the thousands of supposedly controlled substances entering the air meet up with the PPM limits of mercury, lead, pharmaceutical compounds, big Ag runoff and the like found in our drinking water that meet up with the sometimes tainted food we eat full of additives like corn syrup solids that help along the Type II diabetes problem in the U.S.

The industries that do this to our air, water, and food protest global warming as way to sideline the real issue, which is their pollution, in order stop any policies that might make them clean up their mess, and to avert new green industry that is competition. It’s one of the greediest ploys ever and polluting industry is pulling out all the stops. They put saving jobs out front at these rallies to mask the bad they do to the environment and all of us including their employees in the long run. The rise in cancer rates and new diseases isn’t a coincidence but may be more of an indication of what we’re really eating, breathing, and drinking.

These anti-environmental rallies are called “grassroots” events but DeSmogBlog dubbed them “glorified company picnics.” A New Mexico blog FBIHOP reported: “The Houston Astroturf event [was] an ‘energy employee’s rally’ a more fitting description of the closed door event that drew somewhere between 2,500-3,500 oil industry employees who were bussed in and given yellow ‘Energy Citizen’ t-shirts in “‘another high-priced photo op for the oil and gas industry.’”

It was also stated that one of the rallies in Texas was organized by the DW Turner PR firm that represents BP and Chevron.

The biggest “Friends of America” rally slated for Labor Day in West Virginia is no different. It’s backed by none other than Massey Energy that is a notoriously dirty coal company. According to the Rural Blog, The Lexington Herald-Leader reported:

Massey Energy Co. will pay a record $20 million for polluting streams around its coal mines in Kentucky and West Virginia, and spend another $10 million to prevent future problems. The lawsuit filed by the Environmental Protection Agency last May charged that Massey discharged excess amounts of metals, sediment and acid mine drainage into hundreds of rivers and streams in the two states.

The Rural Blog also included Louisville’s The Courier-Journal statement:

The civil penalty [for Massey] is the largest ever for violating wastewater discharge permits, and “stems from the massive, 300-million-gallon slurry spill in Martin County, Ky., in October 2000, often described as the southeastern United States’ worst environmental disaster, as well as 4,500 violations of Clean Water Act permits at mines in the two states. Many of the violations exceeded limits by 40 percent, with some pollutants discharged at levels more than 10 times their limit, the government said.

So if you run across Massey’s CEO Don Blankenship’s invitation to the Labor Day rally on You Tube where he says: “Hello I’m Don Blankenship and I’d like to invite you to a Labor Day rally in West Virginia. We’re going to have Hank Williams and have a good time but we’re also going to learn how environmental extremists and corporate America are both trying to destroy your jobs,” beware of the devil who likes to confuse.

Massey IS corporate America at its polluting finest. These rallies support the real extremists.

BTW the rallies aren’t limited to a few states. Michigan has one slated for September 3rd, Detroit’s Burton Manor Banquet and Conference Center.

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-suits-claims/10272123-1.html
.

http://irjci.blogspot.com/2008/01/massey-paying-record-penalty-for-water.html.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/verizon_massey/?rc=homepage.

· Clean Energy Deployment Administration – provides for increased capitalization of clean energy projects;
· Oil and gas – opens portions of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, including Destin Dome, to oil and gas leasing, and establishes a one-stop permitting office in Alaska for offshore leasing in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas;
· Alaska natural gas pipeline – increases federal loan guarantee for the developers of a gas pipeline project from $18 billion to $30 billion, and allows access to the Federal Financing Bank;
· Energy workforce development – provides assistance to institutions of higher learning and community colleges that place an emphasis on energy jobs and help train the energy workers of the future;
· Energy efficiency – establishes new efficiency standards for several consumer products and makes changes that will allow standards to be updated more often and be market driven;
· Renewable electricity standard – requires utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity with renewable energy by 2021, and contains consumer off-ramps for increased costs and the opportunity to petition for a variance due to transmission constraints, includes expanded definition of biomass, eligible hydropower and removes nuclear uprates from the baseline;
· Nuclear – provides clear statement of the federal government’s support for nuclear energy, as well as encourages resolution of the spent nuclear fuel issue.
· Transmission – addresses planning and siting of electrical transmission infrastructure by encouraging states to develop plans and giving FERC backstop siting authority, ties cost allocation to benefits;
· Cyber security – increases authority for both FERC and the Department of Energy to protect the nation’s electrical grid from cyber security threats and vulnerabilities;
· Carbon sequestration – allows for indemnification of up to 10 demonstration projects;
· Modification of Section 526 – allows the government, and in particularly the military, to purchase Canadian tar sand oil.

Either the two bills will collide, and end up being much ado about nothing, or meld into a bill everyone can work with notwithstanding industry lobbyists who would like all to remain status quo even though the math doesn’t add up. We use a quarter of the world’s oil, and only have 3% of the world’s oil stores. When we get into tar sand oil, the price of producing the stuff and the pollution it produces is ridiculous to even bring up in an environmental conversation. We need to move along to sustainable, renewable energy and soon.

The idea is to use as little as necessary of the old fossil fuels in the interim process of the shift to alternatives while we concentrate on funding technology that has been squeeze played for quite awhile. And what are some of the technologies that have been held up? It’s been over a year since I blogged about Centia, a process that uses restaurant sludge grease and converts it to jet fuel and other fuels at the molecular level. http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2009/01/jet-fuel-from-animal-fats-algae-oil-via.html. This fuel can be ready to go in less than 2 years if it gets proper funding. See what I mean? What’s the stall? There is a never-ending supply of restaurant grease the way America likes to eat. And what about algae for fuel? I blogged about that too. Some mighty fine progress is being made along those lines, http://earth2tech.com/2008/03/27/15-algae-startups-bringing-pond-scum-to-fuel-tanks/, but again its overlooked in the media and subject to conservative spin that it costs too much or will cost jobs. I’ve even run across someone wondering where we’re going to grow all the algae? Duh–pond scum, some of that stuff can regenerate in 24 hours in the right bog.

I thought we knew by now that anything brand new costs more. Look at mainframe computers back in the 70’s compared to laptops, or digital watches, or radios. We can buy a digital watch or radio in the dollar store now. I bought a dollar store radio for my sister in a nursing home. I couldn’t believe the sound I got out that little plastic thing when I put the earphones on. Unbelievable.

The ingenuity of invention that transpires when something is finally unleashed from the grasp of the status quo is unbelievable and could put the U.S. in a position of industrial leadership again. And that’s how I and many others picture the future. Superceding fossil fuels isn’t a downfall, but an opportunity. We’ll be saying the word, “unbelievable” about a lot of things we invent like running our cars, and heating our homes with restaurant grease or algae, or solar, or wind. Alternative energy is a diverse and growing market. If anything our environment will be a lot quieter.

Read more about both bills:

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=IssueItems.View&IssueItem_ID=1fbce5ed-7447-42ff-9dc2-5b785a98ad80.

http://www.pewclimate.org/acesa

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/18405

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/17/17greenwire-senate-committee-approves-broad-energy-package-9861.html

http://www.grist.org/article/broad-and-diverse-support-for-waxman-markeys-american-clean-energy-and-secu.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/17/17greenwire-senate-committee-approves-broad-energy-package-9861.html

According to the website, Mongabay.com, the report was compiled by “13 governmental science agencies, several top universities, and research institutions.” Described as “‘the most up-to-date, comprehensive and authoritative assessment’ of the affects of climate change on the U.S., the report splits the U.S. into nine regions because after all we differ greatly relative to climate here in the U.S. The regions are: Southwest, Northwest, Great Plains, Midwest, Southeast, Northeast, Alaska, islands, and coastal regions.

The Midwest or Great Lakes region report is accurate. We are seeing more snow in winter and rain in early spring, then we dry up the rest of the summer into fall. The bad thing is I think we’re getting more and more windy too.

And the impact of global warming in Alaska has been kept under wraps for the most part. The report states: “The thawing permafrost is causing land to sink, damaging homes and public infrastructure, costing the state billions of dollars for repair costs. In addition, the thawing permafrost endangers coast lines already threatened by loss of sea ice and rising sea levels.” This is happening in the land of “drill, baby, drill?”

Evan Mills, a scientist at Berkeley who contributed to the report said, “The good news is that the harshest impacts of future climate change can be avoided if the nation takes deliberate action soon. This can be done through a balanced mix of activities to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and adaptation to the otherwise unavoidable impacts.”

Unfortunately, there seems to be an economic downfall attached to each region as the result of global warming too. CEO of World Wildlife Fund expressed, “Already Americans are paying the price for the lack of action on climate change in the past and those costs will only rise. It’s time for Congress to act. ”

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0617-hance_US_warming.html.

Another effort begins next week when “the House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin hearing on comprehensive energy and climate legislation.” Chairman Henry Waxman plans on moving the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” out of committee by Memorial Day.

Finally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intends to bring the bill to the House floor this year.

It couldn’t come at a more appropriate time since next Wednesday, April 22, is EARTH DAY!

Just the fact that President Obama is ready to fully commit the U.S. has “set off a flurry of diplomacy around the globe,” according to a NYT article. It also reported that the U.N.’s top climate official and Secy. General are organizing a high level meeting on climate and energy. Britain and Denmark have already visited the White House on climate issues. And Secy. of State, Hillary Clinton has suggested a partnership between China and the U.S. An envoy from China is coming here soon.

Even though most countries worldwide are suffering an economic downturn, it hasn’t put a damper on attempting another treaty. Limiting emissions has already started albeit unplanned.
The economic downturn has had a side effect of lowering emissions with many industry polluters who cut back on production, shipping/trucking is down, and daily commuters to the work place have become less and less.

Many feel this is not the right time to tackle climate change, that we need to stabilize the economy first, but with what—polluting industry again? What an extremely backward move that would be. Others have the foresight to see this is the opportune moment to tackle climate problems not only through limiting emissions but also nurturing much needed NEW economic growth potential in green industry. As John Ashton, the British foreign secretary’s special rep. for climate change stated: “The number one thing will be for everyone to see that the U.S. is on an urgent and transformational path to a low carbon economy—that would have a galvanizing effect.” Transformational is the key word.

So, as many an environmentalist has surmised, a simple move by the U.S. toward environmentalism shoulda, woulda, coulda made a big difference long ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/science/earth/01treaty.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&th&emc=th

The Grist website offered a good introduction as to who’s who in the Obama administration that’s going to be watching over all things environmental.

The lineup looks good, although I worry a little about the agricultural industry and hopes for eliminating CAFO’s.  But time will tell. We’ll see the direction this administration takes soon by the rulings President Obama overturns his first few weeks in office. Hopefully the animals in peril from being delisted from the Endangered Species List will soon be reinstated, and their habitat protected.

I’ve signed quite a few environmental petitions for various things aimed at the White House ASAP. Many, many people do want change. Right now I’d like to see change in my heating bill! Not enough sun this winter to help out.

http://grist.org/feature/2008/11/13/index.html