Senate on Climate Change , In the US, the Senate began debate yesterday on legislation to address climate change. The "SF Chronicle" reports here that the opponents and proponents were so eager to start bare knuckling over the bill that they voted 74-14 to proceed to debate. The bill "would require about 2,100 major U.S. emitters – mostly coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and chemical plants – to pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Proceeds from selling or trading those permits could total over $6 trillion over the next 40 years, and would be reinvested in renewable energy and rebates to consumers." Here's a graphic from the "NY Times" illustrating the geography of carbon emissions in the US.
S.3036 has been the focus of much debate already, both on the Hill and off. Here's one analysis of some of the policy and politics from the Center for American Progress. Another CAP, the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a grouping of industry and environmental groups, agrees on six principles, but differs internally on critical issues such as to what extent permits will be given away or auctioned to industries.
As I've noted recently, we're not going to have a climate change law in the US this year. The debates on this legislation now are important, though, for staking out various positions, and putting the issue out before the public.
Solar Power Economics , The "FT" had a nice story the other day on the Silver lining in solar power storm clouds. (Remember, you may have to register, but it's free and otherwise painless.) The line that caught my eye was that, according to one industry analyst, "the global capacity for production of photovoltaic equipment – the biggest section of solar power technology which converts sunlight directly into electricity – is set to increase "dramatically,' from 3 gigawatts last year to 15 to 20 gigawatts of production in 2010. Much of the growth is coming from China." 2010 is right around the corner!
Take note also that "Abu Dhabi's Masdar Initiative intends to spend more than $2 billion to build a thin-film solar manufacturing subsidiary," according to the Dow Jones news service here. (I wrote about the Masdar project here last month.)
Two Important Conferences , The first of these is the meeting in Bonn that began yesterday. "More than 2,400 participants, including government delegates from 172 countries and representatives from business and industry, environmental organizations and research institutions are attending the two-week meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)," reads this release. The AP reports "The Bonn talks are to go into the details of an agreement to be concluded in December 2009 and signed in Copenhagen, Denmark. The talks are based on an accord reached in Bali last December when the United States, India and China indicated they would take part in a post-2012 arrangement," said the AP here. You can follow all the proceedings at the UNFCCC website and at the International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD) here. (I highlighted the IISD's "knowledge management project," Climate-L.org, on May 29 below.)
The other conference is the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that began today in Rome. Billed as the "World Food Security Summit," there were more than 40 world leaders gathered at the emergency meeting and UNSG Ban Ki-Moon told them hunger breeds "social disintegration, ill health and economic decline," according to the "LA Times" here. See also this release from the FAO with details of their Director-General Jacques Diouf's impassioned speech. Diouf said "The structural solution to the problem of food security in the world lies in increasing production and productivity in the low-income, food-deficit countries." (I referenced the new, comprehensive report, "OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017," in the context of the food-biofuel controversy on May 30 below.) In the context of issues that we're looking at here, Diouf also said: "Nobody understands how a carbon market of 64 billion dollars can be created in the developed countries to offset global warming but that no funds can be found to prevent the annual deforestation of 13 million hectares, especially in the developing countries whose tropical forest ecosystems act as carbon sinks for some 190 gigatonnes," and "Nobody understands how 11 to 12 billion dollars in subsidies in 2006 and protective tariff policies have had the effect of diverting 100 million tonnes of cereals from human consumption, mostly to satisfy a thirst for fuel for vehicles."
The somewhat ubiquitous IISD is also in Rome. See their coverage here. Their coverage, by the way, can be found not only in English, but in French, Spanish and Arabic as well.
REDD , I referenced the movement for "reducing emissions from deforestation and ecosystem degradation" in my last post below. Here's a little more insight from "The Economist" going back to March. They mention projects that are trying to prevent rainforest destruction through various approaches to "voluntary" credits.
The smart money, though, is on a post-Kyoto, UN-administered system that will grant offset credits for forest projects. I wrote in my review of an important new book, Earth: The Sequel, "A post-Kyoto international regime that set a reasonable price on carbon ($30 a ton) would allow Brazil alone to realize $168 billion profit from protecting its rainforests while preventing emissions of six billion tons of carbon dioxide, according to the Woods Hole Research Center. (Pop quiz: After the US and China, which two countries are the biggest contributors to global warming? Brazil and Indonesia – because of rainforest destruction.)"
