US President Barack Obama (Flickr/ Brian Wolfer)

By Alex Pashley

No target was spared on Saturday night as President Barack Obama poked fun at acerbic Republicans, fellow democrats and even himself.

Though one of the celebrity-filled bash’s most raucous moments came with an outburst on US opposition to tackling global warming.

Inviting on stage American comic Keegan-Michael Key before an audience of 2,600 from the media, politics and show business, Obama spoke in level-headed presidential tones, while Key translated his true thoughts.

But when the act turned to climate change, Obama flipped: “It’s crazy! What about our kids?! What kind of stupid, shortsighted, irresponsible…” before Key stopped him, and told him to get counselling.

Chapeau Obama.

The post On climate change, Obama don’t need no ‘anger translator’ appeared first on Climate Home News.

The costs of inaction on climate change are likely to rise significantly says the White House (Pic: Soil Science.info/Flickr)

By John Upton in Los Angeles

As hearings began on Tuesday morning into proposed greenhouse gas rules affecting American power plants, President Barack Obama got an early jump on his critics with the release of an economic report linking further delays to climate action with spiraling costs and financial damages.

The American Chamber of Commerce and other big-business groups representing fossil fuel companies say the rules, which would primarily curb pollution from the nation’s vast fleet of coal-burning power plants, would hinder the economy by raising electricity costs.

Environmentalists counter that energy efficiency gains under the new rules, combined with a potential jolt to the fast-growing renewable energy sector, could lead to economic as well as climate benefits.

But as these groups were pleading their cases Tuesday during the first of four planned public hearings hosted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, each of which has already “sold out,” it was the Obama Administration that was controlling the news.

Delayed action will increase the costs of climate change. It’s time to act: http://t.co/RYfLVl7PQ8 #ActOnClimate

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) July 29, 2014

In addition to releasing a new report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the White House made separate announcements Tuesday regarding fresh efforts to reduce climate-changing methane emissions and to use big data to help farmers adapt to climate change.

Meanwhile, high-profile White House advisor John Podesta, a strong advocate of climate action, is leading the US delegation at the Pacific Islands Forum this week.

And State Secretary John Kerry discussed climate change risks and clean energy during a speech about Indian and U.S. relations at the Centre of American Progress think tank on Monday.

The new White House report concludes that the cost of “hitting a specific climate target,” such as limiting carbon dioxide concentrations, would increase 40% for every decade that efforts to curb carbon emissions are delayed.

It also points to research that concludes that allowing global temperatures to rise by 3 degrees C, instead of the global goal of 2 C, would worsen economic damages by 0.9% of global output. In the U.S., the report notes that would have translated into a $150 billion hit in 2014.

“These costs will take the form of either greater damages from climate change or higher costs associated with implementing more rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,” the 32-page report states. “In practice, delay could result in both types of costs.”

Wide support

Tuesday’s announcements and report were fresh signs that Obama’s Democratic Party remains confident that acting to slow and adapt to climate change has become a winning electoral strategy.

Obama, who is serving his second and final four-year term, began a climate protection blitz a little more than a year ago, when he announced a 75-goal climate action plan.

The blitz has included rolling out new regulations, publishing scientific reports, and making speeches that extol the environmental and economic benefits of slowing warming.

The president has recently been lambasting Republican energy policies during speeches, accusing his political opponents of pretending to not be able to read scientific reports.

Those attacks have been part of a broader effort by the Democrats to use climate change as a political wedge issue, isolating Republicans from the majority of the American electorate.

Although Americans overall remain more apathetic about climate change than residents of other countries, polls have consistently shown that most Americans support the proposed new power plant rules.

Political divide

Meanwhile, Republicans, with some high-profile exceptions, have been backing away from former positions of flat-out climate change denialism.

But they have been struggling to consistently articulate a fresh position on climate change. Some former climate change deniers have taken to deflecting questions about global warming by saying they’re not academically qualified to discuss climate science.

The schism between the parties on climate change is widening as the U.S., one of the world’s worst greenhouse gas polluters, and long a thorn in the side of global efforts to slow down global warming, prepares for elections that could shape the fate of international climate agreements.

Elections in November will reshape Congress, which, under the current control of the conservative Republican Party, would never be expected to ratify an international climate treaty that’s expected to be finalized in Paris late next year.

The Republican-controlled Congress has refused to pass laws that address climate change, forcing Obama to craft a climate strategy that leverages the Clean Air Act and other existing laws.

Meanwhile, the nation will elect a new president in late 2016 – a leader who is likely to oversee early American efforts to meet the nation’s obligations under next year’s climate treaty.

“There’s a marked shift in the way climate change is being perceived by the American public and by the political classes,” David Doniger, the policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a science-based group that helped the federal government craft its proposed power plant rules, told RTCC.

Doniger attributed wild weather events afflicting North America in recent years and a “steady drumbeat of scientific reports” for the turnaround.

“I don’t think a climate denier can be elected president, and that’s a quandary for the Republican Party,” Doniger said.

“It creates a big challenge for someone in the Republican Party, who might do well in the primaries, but who is basically alienating themselves from the center of the electorate.”

The post Obama cranks up pressure on critics with latest climate play appeared first on Climate Home News.

EP President Martin Schulz welcomes Xi Jinping to the European Parliament (Source: European Parliament)

By Sophie Yeo

Strong words of commitment to a new UN deal on climate change have emerged from Brussels this week, following a series of high-level meetings with Ban Ki-moon, President Obama and Xi Jinping.

The busy week saw leaders from the world’s two largest emitters, along with the UN Secretary General, descend upon the EU, with climate change playing a prominent role in their discussions.

In a meeting with European Commission President Barroso, Ban encouraged the EU to adopt its 2030 package of climate and energy targets at the upcoming Council meeting in June.

This would mean they were ready to present at a climate summit that he will host alongside the UN General Assembly this year.

“I hope EU will lead this campaign and agree on these visions at the forthcoming June summit meeting, so that they can come with very ambitious targets to the climate change summit meeting which I’m going to convene on 23 September,” he said at a press conference today.

“We need European Union’s leadership on this matter.”

His call seems unlikely to be heeded considering the conclusions of the EU Council in March, where heads of state decided that the target of a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions across Europe should be finalised by October at the latest.

This would be after Ban Ki-moon’s summit, but before the next round of UN climate talks, which will take place in Lima in December. The official deadline for countries to submit their contribution to the UN’s new climate treaty is March next year.

@jschmidtnrdc thought all parties had already decided that…

— Yvo de Boer (@yvodeboer_KPMG) April 2, 2014

@yvodeboer_KPMG yes, but language at #COP19 wasn’t as explicit as this. Plus this is a Heads of Government statement so carries more weight

— Jake Schmidt – NRDC (@jschmidtnrdc) April 2, 2014

President Obama, US Secretary of State John Kerry, and Chinese President Xi Jinping joined Ban Ki-moon in committing to working with the EU for a strong deal on climate change in Paris 2015.

China, the US and EU are essential in securing the treaty, as the first, second and third largest emitters respectively. Each has a powerful input during the negotiations, but several important ideological differences remain, most notably between the level of commitment that rich countries should take on in comparison to developing states.

Their ability to smooth over these differences will be vital to the eventual success of the deal.

Speaking today, Commission President Barroso said that it was “incredibly important” that there was a global commitment to climate change, and that China and the US also showed leadership.

“We very much appreciate efforts that they are doing, mainly domestically, but we believe it is also important that internationally they show this leadership so that we can have success for the global community and for the future of our planet,” he said.

In a joint statement following Xi’s trip to Brussels, the EU and China said that they both “recognised the need to strengthen cooperation on climate change” ahead of the Paris Conference.

Meanwhile, Obama stressed that a failure to tackle climate change would threaten both the economy and security.

Secretary of State John Kerry met with the EU-US Energy Council today, where both sides reaffirmed their “mutual determination” to achieve a deal. They also committed to cooperate the transition to a low carbon energy system, though measures such as renewable energy, energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage development.

The post US, China and EU agree to cooperate on UN climate treaty appeared first on Climate Home News.

By John McGarrity

Opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline have stepped up their campaign after a State Department report on Friday downplayed impact of the project on climate change.

Supporters say the report increases the likelihood of approval by President Obama, who has the final say in whether the project can go ahead.

The final environmental review said the Canada-US oil pipeline would not greatly increase carbon emissions because oil sands in Alberta would be developed anyway and use other forms of transport such as tankers and rail.

But campaigners vowed to use the courts, civil disobedience and political pressure ahead of November’s Congressional elections to get the pipeline blocked.

“Keystone XL continues to fail all the tests that President Obama has said it must pass. It clearly fails the climate test that he laid out last summer, because every major climate change expert has concluded that it would significantly exacerbate climate change,” said Ken Winston, a spokesman for US green group Sierra Club in Nebraska.

There, the pipeline is particularly frought because landowners fear the impact it might have on supplies from North America’s largest source of groundwater, but others in the state are keen for the project to proceed because it will create jobs and raise revenues.

The pipeline has become an emotive political issue in North America, with Canadian musician Neil Young telling reporters that Keystone XL is a “terrible idea”.

“This fuel is going to China, which is probably the dirtiest place on the planet,” Young said before a concert in Winnipeg.

But researchers think that if Keystone is built, most of the oil exports from tar sands are more likely to go to Europe.

A report in January by the National Resources Defense Council said that US approval for Keystone could drive up Europe’s carbon emissions by 32 million tonnes a year after 2020 if the bloc discontinues a threshold on the carbon footprint of imported oil, which presently rules out oil from Canada’s tar sands.

Critics of Canada’s tar sands say the process is a ‘carbon bomb’ that will triple emissions to 100 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent a year from 2030,  meaning Canada won’t be able to commit to tough climate targets.

Billionaire Tom Steyer, a Democratic Party donor and a high profile opponent of Keystone XL, called on US Secretary of State John Kerry to review  “defective” analysis on the pipeline published by the State Department last week.

“How can the foreign companies who stand to financially benefit from the approval of the KXL pipeline assert that the pipeline is the key to their ability to develop the tar sands without these assertions being considered material to this report?” Steyer wrote in a letter to Kerry.

Decision

Supporters of Keystone said the State Department report should encourage President Obama to give swift approval to the pipeline.

“This report from the Obama administration once again confirms that there is no reason for the White House to continue stalling construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement. “So, Mr. President, no more stalling – no more excuses.”

Obama said last year that permission for the project could be withheld if it “significantly” increased emissions.

Over the next 30 days, John Kerry will evaluate the State Department report, while state agencies and the public will have almost three months to weigh in with their opinions.

After that, the decision is Obama’s alone, but the issue is highly divisive within his Democratic Party, with several senators and governors voicing support for pipeline ahead of mid-term elections.

The post Keystone foes to fight on after government downplays climate risk appeared first on Climate Home News.

(Pic: Pete Souza/White House)

By John McGarrity

US President Obama will likely use his State of the Union address later today pledge the use of executive powers to bypass Congress on curbing coal and encouraging renewables, but the announcement of landmark new polices is unlikely.

Because the speech is usually a broad brush outline of the all the main priorities – both domestic and foreign – Obama’s comments on climate and energy are likely to focus on how he will deliver the “climate action plan” announced last June, bypassing a hostile Congress if necessary.

Dirk Forrister, a former climate advisor to President Clinton and the head of a carbon trading lobby, said Obama may signal that he prefers a new federal law to cut emissions.

Or at the very least, Obama is likely to remind Congress he can use his existing authority to the maximum by regulating coal-fired power through the Clean Air Act.

“Hopefully, he’ll make clear that he has directed EPA to find ways to include market-based measures for states like California to keep up the good work they have underway through their cap-and-trade programme,” Forrister said.

Strong US policies to limit domestic greenhouse gas emissions are seen as critical to the success of a proposed UN climate treaty, which is set to be signed in Paris in little over 22 months time. The country is the world’s second largest source of climate-warming gases after China.

Bully pulpit

The address, which is usually delivered to an audience of Congress and broadcast across US Networks, last year outlined plans to use the power of the presidency to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

This was later backed up in June by a plan to curb coal and encourage renewables and using the Environmental Protection Agency if necessary, a proposal strongly opposed by Republican legislators on Capitol Hill.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell earlier this month tried to force a Senate vote on one of the main regulations in the climate plan, a move that would compel Democrats in coal mining areas to take a public stance on the controversial rule heading into midterm elections in November.

“Even one line mentioning a particular issue can generate a great deal of reaction just because it has managed to make it into the State of the Union speech. But once the hubbub dies down after a few days it’s all about delivery,” said Jake Schmidt of the Natural Resources Defence Council, an environmental think tank.

@johnpodesta on NPR this AM: Obama has “warmed up” to bypassing congress, including for climate policy.

— Stephen Lacey (@Stphn_Lacey) January 28, 2014

Obama’s former top energy and climate adviser, Carol Browner, told reporters last week that Obama will vow in the State of the Union address  to get the job done on cutting greenhouse gas emissions

However the President is thought unlikely to signal policies that would mean major changes to an ‘all-of the-above’ strategy that aims to encourage wind, solar, biomass but also provides incentives for efficient coal-fired power stations,  as well as fracking for shale gas and oil.

A boom in output of oil and gas from unconventional sources has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs, driven down energy prices and reduced US dependence on imports, benefits Obama is likely to sell again to the US public this evening.

Tougher regulations

Some left-leaning think tanks want to see the President pick clear winners in the US energy industry, such as extending tax breaks for renewable energy.

They also want a continued moratorium on Arctic drilling and the 40-year ban on US oil exports to be maintained.

Obama is unlikely to give clues in tonight’s speech on whether he will approve or block the highly controversial Keystone XL pipeline, as the president is likely to avoid many specific issues that are divisive within his own party, said Chip Knappenberger of the right-leaning Cato Institute.

“He’s got a lot on his plate, so I’d be surprised if energy and climate issues get more than a couple of lines in the entire speech,” he said.

Nor is Obama thought likely to link climate change and recent extreme weather events, such as the Polar Vortex that blasted much of the US with freezing temperatures.

While the president is still expected tonight to repeat his commitment to slowing the pace of climate change, he will probably be coy on details – such as post-2020 emissions cuts – as major emitters still have a year before they have to submit their plans to the UN.

Recent comments by Obama printed in the New Yorker appear to underline a growing concern in the White House that the talks to build a global deal to be signed in Paris next year are the last chance to curb rises in global temperatures.

The President was reported as saying “we’ll be four feet underwater” if China and India ended up consuming as much fossil-fuel generated energy as the USA.

The post State of the Union: How will Obama tackle climate change? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Gina McCarthy, Obama’s choice for the next Environmental Protection Agency leader, has faced opposition from Republicans

By Sophie Yeo

Coal ash, toxic substances and power plant emissions should be a priority for Gina McCarthy if she is appointed to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an environmental scientist at Duke University has suggested.

William Chameides, the Nicholas Professor of the Environment at Duke University in North Carolina, said that the EPA should designate coal ash as a hazardous material, reform the Toxic Substance Control Act and propose carbon dioxide emissions rules for existing power plants if McCarthy takes up the position.

Chameides said, “The EPA has promised action on coal ash since the waning days of the Clinton presidency, but instead we get one delay after another, while research study after research study adds to the body of evidence showing the harmful effects coal ash has on the environment.”

Coal ash is produced when coal is burned. On average, 61 million metric tons are produced in the USA each year, of which 70-80% goes to landfill, with the rest being used for construction. It contains over a dozen heavy metals, including arsenic, mercury and lead, many of which are toxic.

It has been a matter of controversy for the EPA whether or not they should classify coal ash as hazardous waste, when doing so would impact heavily on the coal ash recycling industry. Last month, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a bill aimed at preventing the EPA from classifying it as hazardous.

He continued, “Working with Congress to reform the outdated Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) should likewise be a priority for McCarthy. TSCA no longer provides adequate protection from chemical risks in the products we buy. An estimated 80,000 chemicals are circulating in the market these days, but only nine are regulated as hazardous. That can’t be right.

“EPA should also take the plunge and propose carbon dioxide emissions rules for existing power plants. Such rules will force closure or significant refits for the nation’s dirtiest and least-efficient plants and, ultimately, wean the country off coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and storage capabilities.”

Climate change plan

If McCarthy is nominated, she will find herself under greater pressure than her predecessor to enact such proposals, thanks to Obama’s recently announced Climate Action Plan, in which he stressed the responsibility of the EPA in combatting climate change.

Addressing Georgetown University in June, Obama said, “I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.”

Responding to a memorandum to the EPA released on the same day as this address, the EPA last week released a redrafted proposal of the rules it released last year concerning the emissions of new power stations.

The fact that this redraft, the details of which have not yet been released, arrived way ahead of the schedule set by Obama, suggests that the EPA may be prepared to act with equal haste on his further directive to issue proposed carbon pollution standards for existing power plants by 1 June 2014, which are then to be enacted by June 2015.

Delays

Obama nominated McCarthy to head the agency on 4 March. She has already directed the EPA’s clean air policy for the last four years and built up a reputation as an effective bureaucrat under both parties.

Her appointment has been severely delayed by Republicans who are opposed to what they perceive as the overregulation of the EPA and to Obama’s efforts to combat climate change. The fact that objections tend to be to the EPA itself rather than to McCarthy personally has prompted suggestions that her nomination has been held hostage to politics. Republican attempts to block the debate mean that this has been the longest time that the EPA has been without a leader.

Obama has been criticised by his opponents for waging a ‘war on coal’. Yesterday, Mitch McConnell, a Republican senator from the coal mining state of Kentucky, launched a radio advert in which he claims that “President Obama and his allies view coal as a threat to their liberal ideology and green energy policies cooked up in Washington.”

However, now that the Republican Senator David Vitter has dropped his threat to filibuster her nomination over concerns over the transparency of the EPA, it is looking increasingly likely that the Senate Democrats will be able to get the 60 votes needed to bring the matter to vote.

The post “Get off the fence” on coal ash, scientist tells US EPA appeared first on Climate Home News.

It seems that everyone who understands the threat climate change poses is lining up to congratulate President Obama on the plan he unveiled this week.

I fully appreciate the significantly different tone he has adopted, as well as the number of measures that Obama has articulated, and of course I welcome his words and proposed actions. I have no doubt that Obama is sincere and that he wants to deal with the issue (unlike his predecessor) but, from where I sit in Bangladesh, I am afraid his words are simply too little too late!

Let me give a few reasons why.

First, because the United States of America refused to join the global Kyoto Protocol and took very little real action to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions over the past 15 years, other major emitters have felt little pressure to act with ambition. Meanwhile the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere has risen to its highest level in three million years.

In other words we have moved inexorably towards a much warmer world and we are already, arguably, seeing the manifestations of this in stronger and more frequent cyclones, hurricanes, floods and droughts and heat waves across the world. So we have lost almost two decades as the United States — the world’s richest country and its biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases — has stayed disengaged.

Obama’s climate plan is significant but not necessary worthy of mass congratulation argues Saleemul Huq (Source: Flickr/White House)

Second, the speech President Obama made this week was one he could have made in January 2009 immediately after he was elected for his first term. He wasted an entire term trying to engage with Congress and now has realised that he needs to move ahead without them. He could have done this five years ago.

Third, the United States of America has completely ignored most of the funds set up under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to help the poorest and most vulnerable developing countries adapt to today’s (not tomorrow’s) climate impacts.

The amounts his administration has given recently to the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Fund are trivial compared to both the scale of the problem as well as what other, much smaller developed countries, have provided. The United States has so far refused to make any contribution to the Adaptation Fund, which is one of the best managed funds. On this score alone the United States, far from showing leadership, is perhaps the first in showing “laggardship”.

While Obama’s speech is better late than never, I feel it is still too little too late. I would urge the President to be much bolder with the domestic actions to reduce emissions using the full authority of the Executive Office bypassing Congress (which he has done on other issues) while taking a true leadership role at the international level, especially by providing substantial funds into the Adaptation Fund of the UN.

My country faces the impacts of climate change right now, not in some distant future, so I cannot join those who only congratulate the President for his pronouncements and actions. I urge those who praised the President this week to now spur him to take much greater actions commensurate with both his lofty rhetoric as well as the scale of the problem.

Dr Saleemul Huq is senior fellow in the climate change group at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

The post Why I cannot congratulate President Obama on his climate plan appeared first on Climate Home News.

She welcomed President Obama’s recent policy announcements on renewable energy and efficiency but said governments were still falling short.

“Finally the United States is putting out a menu of very concrete measures,” said Figueres.

“But I think the fact remains that compared to what the science demands…no country is doing enough,” she told Reuters at a meeting of climate activists in Istanbul.

Christiana Figueres said no government is yet doing enough to match what the science says is necessary (Source: Flickr/UNFCCC)

Scientists have determined that warming beyond 2°C would be dangerous with governments agreeing to adopt this target during the Copenhagen UN climate negotiations in 2009.

Several reports by the World Bank, UNEP and the International Energy Agency (IEA) have said current policies will mean this level will be exceeded.

Figueres was pleased to have a shift in stance from the US which has struggled to make strong climate commitments in the face of domestic hostility from Republicans.

She warned that it was important for the US to now follow through in its promises.

“I do think that an energy czar in the White House would be extraordinarily helpful,” she said. “There has to be someone at a high level in the White House that can actually coordinate all of this and ensure that it gets done.”

The post Figueres: No country doing enough on climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

Was that the Obama speech climate campaigners have waited five years to hear?

Or was it just a great speech?

There’s no doubt when it comes to set piece occasions, few can compete with the US President.

The question is if, and how, it changes the game.

For the largely sympathetic audience watching the speech in the blistering heat of Georgetown, there appears to be little doubt these were sincere words.

Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense League, a Washington think tank close to Obama met the President ahead of his address.

“From what he told me and from what he told the nation, I am leaving campus more hopeful and energized about our chances to prevent climate catastrophe than I have been in a long while,” he said.

This was a reasoned, rational and forceful address. More the pity no US national network picked it up.

Obama must deliver on the sentiments behind his strong climate action speech (Source: White House/Pete Souza)

Obama argued for action in plain language that the man on the street can understand, touching on economic growth, jobs, energy bills and taking responsibility for the future.

And he touched a nerve with his call for his fellow countrymen to have faith in America’s capacity for change and renewal – effectively accusing his critics of being defeatist.

“The problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity,” he said.

“These critics seem to think that when we ask our businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they can’t or they won’t do it. They’ll just kind of give up and quit. But in America, we know that’s not true. Look at our history.”

The meat in the sandwich for environmentalists was the promise of new regulations on coal and gas power stations.

But this call to the man on the street to have faith in their country was the sauce – a cry to the heart of the USA, which prides itself on resourcefulness and innovation.

Hope?

Setting the plan to one side. If this speech achieved anything, it was changing the narrative of climate change from struggle and disaster to hope and opportunity.

“A low-carbon, clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come. And I want America to build that engine. I want America to build that future – right here in the United States of America,” he added to applause.

This is the signal many business leaders want – a clear sign from one of the world’s most powerful men that the low carbon economy is the way forward.

If anyone doubts the effectiveness of that message today, check the share price of some of the biggest coal producers. Peabody’s price has slumped by 17% since June 15, although it revived by 1.2% last night.

Expect the war on coal rhetoric from Congress to double, and attacks on a President avoiding the heart of democracy to get louder.

And it’s not just the leading coal companies or Republicans who are angry.

Many greens believe this is simply not enough to avert a climate catastrophe.

Nafeez Ahmed sums it up succinctly in the Guardian, describing it as ‘fatally compromised’ given Obama’s strong support for fracking.

He also picks up on a popular theme – that the USA’s 2009 pledge to cut emissions 17% on 2005 levels by 2020 is far too small for the world’s second largest emitter.

One veteran environment correspondent emailed me yesterday with the line: ‘If this is leadership, then I’m a banana’, a fruity burst of cynicism amid all the praise for Obama.

But given the background to this speech – and the political capital the President has now staked on getting the ball rolling – perhaps he deserves to be given a brief break.

Keystone XL

A decision on the Keystone Pipeline awaits; its future will be based on potential impacts on climate change, Obama said.

This, more than his speech, will be a real test of willpower.

Another barometer will be the USA’s attitude at the UN climate talks, a forum it has form in poisoning.

Last December in Doha small island states were left in tears as US negotiator Todd Stern deftly batted away their pleas for greater ambition.

Obama’s calls for greater action worldwide will only resonate if the US shows willing not just to push its own technology and cheap gas, but to listen to the concerns of smaller nations.

The real prize in question is 2015, and the prospect of a legally binding global emissions deal, set to be signed off in Paris.

This speech and plan has given the climate change sector a valuable boost just when it was needed.

Progressive business like Nike, GM, GE, Unilever and Walmart are backing a clean future – it’s now time for more national leaders to grow some too.

Obama’s Climate Change Speech in Full

The post Comment: Obama raised expectations, now he must meet them appeared first on Climate Home News.

UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Edward Davey

“President Obama is right when he says tackling climate change is a moral obligation and also right when he says cutting carbon pollution will help spark business innovation and create jobs. I welcome his Climate Action Plan. It’s a decisive step by the world’s second largest emitter and demonstrates the growing global momentum toward tackling the threat of dangerous climate change. The UK will work closely with the US on energy efficiency and low carbon technologies, and on securing ambitious global action on climate finance and emission reduction.  We will also keep up the pressure elsewhere, including in Europe.  The EU should adopt a 50% emissions reduction target by 2030 in order to help secure a global deal in 2015.”

Nick Molho, head of climate and energy policy at WWF-UK

“The President’s plan wouldn’t reduce carbon pollution as much as scientists say is needed, but he rightly zeros in on executive branch actions, rather than waiting any longer for Congress. President Obama correctly sees this as an all-hands-on-deck moment requiring a government-wide plan, including action on pollution from the largest source of US emissions — existing dirty power plants. Recognizing that the US needs to meet its international commitments and strongly support robust international action is also crucial as the world works to forge a new global climate pact by 2015.”

Obama’s climate change plans will not need Congressional approval as they fall in with his Executive power (Source: Flickr/White House)

Anthony Hobley, global head, Sustainability & Climate Change, Norton Rose Fulbright/President, Climate Markets & Investors Association

“Plans to support renewables include streamlining consent procedures, creating demand and providing Federally backed loan guarantees. One could speculate that this is the beginnings of a US Federal Green Investment Bank in this package. Energy efficiency is also a key pillar of this plan.

“In the absence of action by US Federal law makers President Obama’s Climate Action Plan is a broad and comprehensive vision for action by the US to both tackle and adapt to climate change. The President would appear to be pulling every executive lever available to him in the absence of action by Congress.”

Hans Verolme, Climate Advisers Network, a member of Climate Action Network International

“We welcome today’s announcement by President Obama that he will keep his Copenhagen promise by implementing important measures to reduce US carbon emissions. But this is a small first step towards climate action. This is not leadership.

“It would be an upside down world if the USA were to try and use this bare minimum of action as a means to pressure other countries to do more. The United States must know this is the first step of a marathon. The next step is for Washington to bring this new ‘can do’ attitude into international climate negotiations in the form of a more constructive position there.”

#Coal shares plunge ahead of Obama’s #climate-change speech via @washingtonpost http://t.co/80rh55eRGv

— Carbon Tracker (@CarbonBubble) June 25, 2013

John Sauven, executive director, Greenpeace UK

“The President is embracing policies that will excite people around the world, and if the full potential of this plan is realised then we could look back at this speech as a landmark moment. At the very least it sends a huge signal. For years, since the failure of the Copenhagen summit and the onset of the financial crisis, politicians have ignored this issue. Now the world’s most powerful man is saying, ‘We’re going to talk about climate change again’.”

Dr Simon Anderson, head of the climate change group, International Institute for Environment and Development

“The US cannot claim to have led anything in the negotiations so far – apart from some obfuscation. If Obama’s emphasis on ‘ambition, inclusiveness and flexibility’ leads to support for common but differentiated responsibility for emissions reductions and contributions to finance for adaptation then this is to be welcomed.”

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary, UNFCCC

“President Obama’s climate action plan is a necessary next step to meet an immediate, worrying shortfall in action to deal with climate change and can be a critical move forward on the path towards a new, global climate agreement. It remains vital that the United States as the world’s largest developed economy is seen to be leading serious action to deal with climate change, both at home and abroad. These new steps will help to meet those goals, if they are implemented to the fullest extent to which they are intended.”

Ambassador Marlene Moses, Permanent Representative to the United Nations for Nauru and Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States

“US President Obama’s announcement represents a positive step on climate change and we hope it translates into even more constructive engagement at the international climate negotiations, particularly when it comes to dramatically reducing greenhouse gases in the next few years, which is essential to keep the seas from washing over some of the world’s lowest lying island nations.

“However, we are painfully aware that coastal erosion, ocean acidification, degraded reefs and fisheries, droughts, floods, and relentless storms represent the new normal for many vulnerable communities. Therefore, any adequate response to climate change must also address permanent losses and damages stemming from the crisis.”

Todd Tanner, chairman, Conservation Hawks

“America’s sportsmen should rally behind President Obama’s new climate plan. Climate change is the single largest threat to hunters and anglers, and to fish & wildlife populations. With Congress unable or unwilling to act, it’s vital for the president to do everything within his power to lower greenhouse gas emissions and rein in global warming. We support the president’s new climate initiative. It will help protect our hunting & fishing, and it gives our children and grandchildren a better chance at a decent future.”

RT @matjhope: I’ll be honest – Obama’s new #climate action plan: #unimpressed. But it’s a start, I suppose http://t.co/ugIqO6HyZE

— Chris Hope (@cwhope) June 25, 2013

The post Obama climate change plan: latest reaction appeared first on Climate Home News.

World governments should help President Obama to circumvent domestic opposition to a global, binding deal on climate change, the UK’s former climate change ambassador has said.

John Ashton warned that US attempts to build support for the new 2015 UN climate treaty to be voluntary must be resisted. Instead diplomatic efforts should be made to “creatively” include the country in a legal agreement.

“Obama has made it clear this is a top priority. It’s a legacy issue. He has a Secretary of State in John Kerry who has been as committed to climate change as any other senior politician in the world for a very long time. There is absolutely no doubting the personal intent and the personal integrity of President Obama and Secretary Kerry,” said Ashton.

“But they have a problem, a real problem, the US congress.”

Ashton said attempts to bring the UN climate treaty down to the level of what is acceptable in Washington should be resisted (Source: Flickr/JColman)

Governments are currently aiming to have a universal treaty on emission reductions, applicable to rich and poor nations, in place by 2015 and enforced from 2020 onwards.

Ashton said the current US solution was to push for a voluntary, lowest common denominator global deal based on the limits of what Obama could push through back home.

“This is what my friend and colleague Tom Burke calls a New Washington Consensus on climate change. That approach can’t work. We can’t achieve consensus on that basis. That was the lesson of [the failed UN talks in] Copenhagen.

“It’s really important if there is an effort to impose that New Washington Consensus, that it fails.”

Creativity

The alternative, Ashton claims, is for the USA to acknowledge the limitations placed on it domestically and to appeal for a workaround.

“If the US said that, I think a lot of people would be sympathetic and would use a lot of imagination to try and find a creative solution. In effect, to treat the US as if it was legally bound even if the Senate did not make it so.”

Climate change represents a number of more ideological issues in the US that hold back acceptance of the near scientific consensus.

Ashton was giving the annual lecture at the SOAS Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, the first time the lecture has turned its attention to climate change. He is also a Professorial Research Associate at the Centre.

He urged the audience not to accept the suggestion that it is too late to act, a recurring theme in the speech. In particular he pointed to the pivotal stage that the UN negotiations have reached.

“Anyone who tells you with certainty that the UNFCCC process is going nowhere, either wants it to go nowhere, or they don’t know what they are talking about,” he said.

The post Ashton: Help Obama sidestep Congress and sign UN climate deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

President Obama told a closed door meeting with Republicans in Washington DC yesterday that the benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline have been exaggerated.

Congressman Lee Terry, who supports the $7bn project to transport Canadian tar sands to Texas, said the President was “conflicted” about the proposal which is awaiting approval by the State Department.

“He said there were no permanent jobs, and that the oil will be put on ships and exported and that the only ones who are going to get wealthy are the Canadians,” said Terry.

President Obama is still on the fence but doubts claims of Keystone XL’s benefits for the US (Source: Flickr/AnHonourableGerman)

Obama stressed to the Republican audience that Keystone XL “will not create as many jobs as you think”.

The pipeline crosses the Canadian-US border making it an issue for the State Department.

New Secretary of State John Kerry is an ardent climate change campaigner but both he and President Obama are thought to be undecided on the issue.

Jobs

Estimates on the number of jobs the pipeline could create vary greatly.

A State Department review published earlier this month found there will be just 35 permanent positions during the pipeline’s operation and 3900 during construction.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) claims it could support 465,000 jobs in the US by 2035.

Keystone XL would transport the oil to refineries on the USA’s Gulf coast. A separate plan to transport the oil to Canada’s west coast for export to Asia, has also hit opposition.

Climate campaigners say the Canadian tar sands, the third largest oil deposits in the world, would have a catastrophic impact on the atmosphere.

Their extraction and production is energy intensive and they also emit more than regular oil when burned.

There are also fears about the consequences of an oil spill. The thick bitumen like oil is harder to clean up than the lighter oils usually transported in pipelines.

The post Obama on Keystone XL: No jobs, no money, no oil appeared first on Climate Home News.

Washington’s resolve to act on climate change will be tested tomorrow when the Senate is presented with new plans for a national carbon tax.

Less than 48 hours after President Obama began adding meat to the bones of his renewed enthusiasm to tackle the issue, a fresh proposal to establish a levy linked to greenhouse gas emissions will be unveiled

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer and Independent Bernie Sanders have arranged a press conference on Thursday to announce what they call “comprehensive legislation on climate change”.

“Under the legislation, a fee on carbon pollution emissions would fund historic investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass,” according to a statement on Senator Sanders’ website. “The proposal also would provide rebates to consumers to offset any efforts by oil, coal or gas companies to raise prices.”

Climate policies have struggled to pass through both Houses in Washington DC (Source: Flickr/AllieCaulfield)

The announcement follows a series of indications in Washington that climate change is becoming a pressing issue.

President Obama raised it in his election victory and inauguration speeches before adding more detail in last night’s State of the Union Address.

The appointment of climate hawk John Kerry as Secretary of State and the establishment of a Climate Caucus has added to the expectation that Obama’s second term will see him turn soundbites into action.

Senator Boxer has been a vocal backer of climate action in the US and has been behind a number of efforts to kickstart national policies.

Last month she spoke of the possibility of replacing the 18.4 cents a gallon tax on gasoline with a carbon tax, that could be reinvested in renewable energy and efficiency measures.

The unpopular gasoline tax is paid at the pump by consumers but has dwindling returns as Obama’s vehicle efficiency policies bite.

Passing this cost to oil companies would make it easier to get backing from the public and fits with suggestions in President Obama’s State of the Union address.

“I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good,” said Obama. “I urge this Congress to get together, pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” said Obama.

In 2010 Senator Boxer described a “reduce and refund” policy to divert the costs of renewable energy away from consumers.

“Reduce the pollution, we say to the polluters, and refund the money to the people so that as we shift to clean energy, it won’t cost [consumers] more. We tried it [climate legislation] twice and the last time the Republicans boycotted my committee,” she told a meeting of the Commonwealth Club.

“Why should we not step up to the plate? We need to do everything we can. It will create jobs here, reduce pollution and help our budget, It’s win, win, win,” she said.

The US currently has two regional carbon trading schemes applicable to electricity generators in California and a coalition of nine states on the Eastern Seaboard.

Terry Townshend of GLOBE International, says efforts to pass ambitious, national climate policies have been difficult to push through both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

“There were a number of attempts to pass a comprehensive climate change bill in the 111th Congress – the most significant of which was the American Clean Energy and Security Bill (ACES) referred to as the “Waxman‐Markey Bill”, which passed the House of Representatives in June 2009 but was rejected by the Senate – all attempts have failed,” he says.

A number of events, most notably Hurricane Sandy have driven up the appetite for climate action from the US public making it politically harder to reject climate policies out of hand.

The post Senate to be presented with US carbon tax plans appeared first on Climate Home News.

In an advertisement printed in newspapers in and around Washington DC, the coalition called on Obama to “lead an effort on the scale and with the urgency we need to phase out fossil fuels and lead America, and the world, in a clean energy revolution”.

The President will make his State of the Union Address today and is widely expected to announce a series of measures to boost the country’s emission reductions.

Obama is hotly tipped to lay out some new climate change policies during the State of the Union address. (Source: Flickr/White House)

Climate change featured prominently in the more philosophically-focused inauguration speech but the State of the Union is a platform to lay out specific policies, making it the first test of Obama’s sincerity on climate action.

Last week the World Resources Institute (WRI) published a collection of policy options readily available to the President without the need to win over a hostile congress or to wait for technological advances.

Limiting emissions from existing power plants and tackling the potent global warming family of HFC gases were near the top of the list.

The US has a target to reduce emissions by 17% on 2005 levels by 2020 and has made some progress.

It is expected to fall short of this objective without the establishment of new policies to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Celebs issue President Obama with climate call to action

The post Morgan Freeman leads Hollywood climate appeal to Obama appeared first on Climate Home News.

President Obama’s Inaugural Address last month surprised many in Washington with its focus on climate change.

It set in motion a flurry of speculation as to how his Administration might transition from ambitious talk to meaningful action during his second term.

The upcoming State of the Union address could be just the opportunity for the President to elaborate on how his Administration might take action.

But what options does the President have at his disposal to reduce GHG emissions at a time where a deeply divided Congress has stalled on the issue?

In January, I wrote a letter to the President, imploring him not to allow Congressional intransigence to breed a policy of inaction.

The United States’ climate problems are best addressed through a market-based, cap-and-trade program that sets a price on carbon.

President Obama has the tools at his disposal to make deep emission cuts. (Source: Flickr/White house)

A well-designed cap-and-trade program provides flexibility and cost-savings for an economy still rebounding from recession – particularly in comparison to inflexible command-and-control regulation.

While it does not seem realistic – or advisable – to attempt another “economy-wide” GHG regulation, under the leadership of the President, Congress could craft more narrowly focused legislation that utilizes cap-and-trade.

A new route to US carbon trading

For inspiration, look no further than the numerous cap-and-trade programs emerging around the world in Australia, New Zealand, the European Union, South Korea, and – yes – China.

Even at home, California has taken the initiative to reduce its emissions by launching a cap-and-trade program this year. Don’t forget the nine Northeast and Atlantic states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), who just announced a strengthening of their electric sector cap-and-trade program.

Indeed, nations around the world are taking actions to reduce emissions, and their policy of choice is overwhelmingly a market-based mechanism.

In the absence of congressional legislation, President Obama still has options. He can choose to use the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce regulations on GHG emissions sources. In his first term, the EPA worked collaboratively with the auto industry to develop vehicle emission standards that are aggressive yet achievable.

Moving forward, the President could again achieve significant emission reductions through the EPA. The Agency is set to finalize performance standards for new power plants this spring, as well as performance standards for heavy-duty trucks.

However, the more significant action would be to regulate emissions from existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.

While EPA regulations are admittedly second best to congressional legislation, the President could follow his auto industry model and collaborate with industry to develop very meaningful reductions from the power sector.

Such an effort, coupled with the transportation reductions he has already achieved, would end the President’s tenure having regulated almost 65% of the country’s emissions.

Next steps 

How regulation is designed under the Clean Air Act will be extremely important to the President’s legacy.

It should be crafted in such a way as to enable states that have already set up climate change programs (i.e. RGGI states and California), or states that would like to join already existing state-level programs, to be able to avoid federal pre-emption so long as their programs are shown to achieve as effective (or better) results.

It should also provide flexible compliance pathways wherever possible to encourage emissions reductions in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

While Congressional action on climate mitigation may remain stalled, it will have a responsibility to address adaptation measures – given the greater risks to communities from extreme weather events.

As Congress begins to address the growing need for infrastructure investment across the country (highways, electrical grid, water infrastructure, disaster relief, etc.) it will be integral that these investments take climate change into consideration.

IN FOCUS: US climate change legislation

Business is already responding to climate risks by investing in adaptation measures. Lawmakers must follow suit to ensure public investment can withstand the increases in extreme events driven by our changing climate.

The President genuinely appears eager to address climate change. Whether Congress obliges or not, he has options at his disposal to achieve results.

If he does so in an effective manner, taking private sector concerns into consideration, the President has the opportunity to make good on his Inauguration Speech.

Outlining some of his Administration’s plans to do so in his next State of the Union would be a good start.

Dirk Forrister is the President and CEO of the International Emissions Trading Association. IETA has been the leading voice of the business community on the subject of carbon markets since 2000.

IETA’s 150 member companies include some of the world’s leading corporations, including global leaders in oil, electricity, cement, aluminum, chemical, paper, and other industrial sectors; as well as leading firms in the data verification and certification, brokering and trading, legal, finance, and consulting industries.

The post Comment: This is Obama’s best chance to cement climate legacy appeared first on Climate Home News.

Republican members of an influential committee in Congress have indicated they will increase pressure on President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Republican-dominated Committee on Energy and Commerce, will launch an “American Energy Security and Innovation” hearing series next Tuesday, focusing on the exploitation of oil, gas and coal in the USA.

While it has no direct legislative power, Washington observers tell RTCC the committee is influential and offers a platform for climate sceptics at the heart of US government. In 2009 Lord Christopher Monckton was invited to give evidence.

Congressman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) says the aim of the hearings will be to demonstrate that the USA needs to continue to exploit its vast reserves of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.

“America has been blessed with an abundance of energy resources. The U.S. is home to the largest estimated recoverable reserves of coal in the world and we have billions of barrels of oil as well as potentially hundreds of years’ worth of natural gas reserves under our feet,” he said.

“Expanding access to these energy resources will remain a top priority this Congress as we continue to fight for common sense solutions like removing barriers to affordable energy supplies, such as coal, increased drilling, and approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.”

Production in Alberta is expected to increase to 3 million barrels per day by 2018

The $7 billion pipeline, which is partially built, would transport oil from the carbon intensive tar sands of north-west Canada to the gulf coast.

Because the pipeline crosses the US border, it’s down to the State Department rather than the Environmental Protection Agency to decide whether to give it a permit.

It will release an environmental impact report before making a call, which will offer an early test of new Secretary of State John Kerry’s climate credentials.

Kerry described climate change as “life threatening” during his nomination hearing, adding that he would personally take change of the Keystone decision.

Executive decision

The tar sands were recently rated as the sixth most dangerous ‘Carbon Time Bomb’ facing the world by Greenpeace, who warn that the world is currently on a pathway to warm by 5°C to 6°C.

Extracting oil from the Alberta sands creates 20-30% more carbon emissions than conventional production, and causes huge levels of environmental damage in the area due to the techniques used.

Campaign groups 350.org, The Sierra Club and the Hip Hop Caucus are planning to protest against the pipeline in Washington DC on February 17, five days after President Obama delivers his State of the Union speech.

Keystone is not expected to figure in this address, but Obama may outline other plans to address climate change including new regulations on carbon emissions from power plants.

A Congress insider who declined to be named told RTCC Obama was “inclined to approve it”, preferring to focus his resources on other challenges facing his administration.

Today’s announcement that the US economy unexpectedly shrank by 0.1% in the fourth quarter of 2012 could also influence that decision.

Republican Congressman Fred Upton, who chairs the Committee on Energy and Power – claims the pipeline and associated industries will create thousands of new jobs.

“You’ll remember that it was about a year ago that the president in a national address said he would do whatever it takes to create American jobs. This is 20,000 new American jobs,” he said.

“And for the Canadians, they’re going to be producing the oil from the oil sands no matter what. They’re going to build a pipeline west to Vancouver and then off to China” if the United States doesn’t approve the pipeline.”

HULLABULLO: Republicans are ramping up pro-Keystone messaging

The post Republicans increase Keystone pressure on Obama appeared first on Climate Home News.

Despite the weird weather and the US election, coverage in the media of climate change fell 2% in 2012.

Hurricane Sandy did its level best to change that at the end of 2012, while President Barack Obama promised it would be top of his ‘to do’ list in his inauguration speech last night.

But if politics and national positions are merely a reflection of what the public want, then perhaps we shouldn’t expect too much too soon.

We’re basing this none-too-scientific prediction on entries into the White House’s We the People online petition website. If your entry attracts 25,000 signatures (the bar used to be set to 100,000) the Administration promises to get in touch.

And last week Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo (aka Incredible Hulk in the Avengers) opened a new petition calling for a ‘war against climate change‘.

After seven whole days, Ruffalo’s petition has just under 6000 supporters, despite being tweeted to his 370,000 twitter followers. That’s pretty poor – almost embarrassing.

To put this level of support into context here are five petition titles that have gathered more signatures…

Assign NASA to do a feasibility study and conceptual design of the Gen1 USS Enterprise interplanetary spaceship. 7242 signatures

Keep Piers Morgan in the USA. 9958 signatures

Direct the United States Mint to make a single platinum trillion dollar coin! [sic] 11,035 signatures

End to the War on Coal, end the job killing policies of the EPA and require an economic impact analysis of new policies. 28,303 signatures

Make the metric system standard in the United States, instead of the Imperial system. 33,855 signatures

Recount the election! [sic] 69,056 signatures

It is however, beating…

Allow the import and sale of Kinder Surprise Eggs in the United States (4170 signatures).

Regardless of whether media and political silence is to blame thus far, both have a role to play in driving it up the agenda now. Many will look to President Obama to take the lead during his second term – and yesterday’s inauguration speech suggested that’s what he intends to do.

“We will respond to climate change knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. The path to sustainable energy will be long and difficult. The US must lead it and claim its promise,” the President said.

The post Star Trek, Piers Morgan and the US climate change debate appeared first on Climate Home News.

We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise.

That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

Michael Brune, Sierra Club Executive Director

“The Sierra Club is heartened by President Obama’s remarks today in his second inauguration and his renewed vow to respond to the threat of climate disruption.

“Indeed, in America, our possibilities are limitless, and the Sierra Club’s 2.1 million members and supporters urge the president to cement our nation’s position as the global clean energy leader by going all in on sustainable energy, holding polluters accountable, and rejecting the dangerous tar sands pipeline. We will work tirelessly to ensure the transition to safe, clean energy sources to fight the most pressing challenge of our time.”

Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund

“The President said it exactly right: ‘We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.’

“We at EDF share the sense of urgency President Obama described. We are fully focused on working with him and many others to achieve climate security and American clean energy innovation.”

President Obama said the transition to sustainable energy was an economic opportunity that should be seized (Source: White House/Pete Souza)

Lou Leonard, Head of Climate Change, WWF-US

“The President is poised to continue speaking out about the dangers of global warming. Even better, he is poised to act. I look forward to working with President Obama and his administration to do what it takes to tackle the challenges ahead.

“It’s heartening to hear President Obama make climate change a key point in his inaugural address–we need his leadership on this issue now more than ever.

“The President should lay out the steps he can and will take to clean up our energy system, help communities prepare for climate disruption and encourage the rest of the world to ramp up action.”

Andrew Steer, President and CEO, World Resources Institute

“In the coming months, we look forward to the Administration following through on the president’s ringing call to action. It will be particularly important to move forward with emissions limits on existing power plants and to use other existing federal authorities to reduce greenhouse gases and drive clean energy technologies.

“The president has already committed to launch a ‘national conversation’ on climate change—this discussion will be critical for communicating global warming’s risks and building momentum, both locally and nationally. In addition to national action, we look forward to a strong foreign policy agenda with climate playing a key role — including bringing a serious, ambitious plan to the UNFCCC international climate negotiations.”

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee

“The way the President spoke about climate change in his remarks today was exactly right. Addressing the threat of climate change is about protecting the future for our children and future generations, our most sacred obligation.”

Margie Alt, Executive Director of Environment America

“President Obama’s second term offers tremendous opportunity to turn the tide on this problem. Starting with rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline, the president must make fighting global warming a central priority.

“Over the next four years, we are counting on President Obama to set tough limits on carbon pollution from power plants, continue investing in the development of clean, renewable energy sources, including wind and solar power, and to implement dramatic energy efficiency improvements that will cut dangerous pollution and protect our environment and our families.

Amy Davidsen, US Executive Director, The Climate Group

“The question is whether he will be satisfied with the progress he’s already poised to achieve, or if he will insist on the Clean Revolution the world really needs. A Clean Revolution will enhance our national and energy security, future-proof our infrastructure and boost jobs, and therefore our economy.

“The latter road will not be easy, and will require a measure of public engagement and bipartisanship unmet in his first term. But it is the only one that will lead to a truly secure and prosperous future. His legacy may not depend on it. But the climate certainly does.”

Alden Meyer, Director of Strategy and Policy, Union of Concerned Scientists

“President Obama’s clarion call to action on the threat of climate change leaves no doubt this will be a priority in his second term.

“It will take a sustained campaign by the President, his Cabinet officials, and the rest of his team to mobilize the American people in support of this effort and to overcome the opposition of entrenched interests to the rapid transition away from fossil fuels that’s needed to stabilize the climate.”

Video: Obama on the “betrayal” of failing to respond to climate change

The post Obama reaction: Sierra Club, WWF & scientists on climate pledge appeared first on Climate Home News.

US President Barack Obama made climate change a central theme of his inauguration speech today calling for business to embrace a green revolution.

Speaking on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, the President framed the climate issue in terms of the economy and triggered spontaneous cheers at the mention of climate change.

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” he told a crowd that dwarfed all but his own previous inauguration.

“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms,” he said in reference to the a year of turbulent weather in the US.

The President received a boost in the polls when Superstorm Sandy struck the east coast of the US just prior to the election. Sandy sent support for climate action soaring and made the Republican’s more sceptical approach unpalatable to some undecided voters.

Severe drought affecting more than 60% of the nation at its height, also built support for a response to climate change.

“The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise.

“That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared,” he said.

The White House tweeted this picture of Barack Obama and his children during his speech

Campaigners have been calling for a more prominent debate on climate change in the US and will be encouraged by today’s speech.

“It’s heartening to hear President Obama make climate change a key point in his inaugural address–we need his leadership on this issue now more than ever,” said Lou Leonard, head of climate change, WWF-US.

“Today’s address is an important first step for using the power of the Presidency to spur a practical national conversation on climate change. The importance of the President regularly raising his voice on this issue cannot be overstated. But a sustained national conversation isn’t enough,” added Leonard.

“The President should lay out the steps he can and will take to clean up our energy system, help communities prepare for climate disruption and encourage the rest of the world to ramp up action.”

Amy Davidsen, US Executive Director with The Climate Group was also welcomed the statement, but warned that he may need to go further than the policies already in the table.

“The question is whether he will be satisfied with the progress he’s already poised to achieve, or if he will insist on the Clean Revolution the world really needs. A Clean Revolution will enhance our national and energy security, future-proof our infrastructure and boost jobs, and therefore our economy,” she said.

“The latter road will not be easy, and will require a measure of public engagement and bipartisanship unmet in his first term. But it is the only one that will lead to a truly secure and prosperous future. His legacy may not depend on it. But the climate certainly does.”

With a Republican led Congress, Obama has struggled to push climate legislation through but growing grassroots support for action could change this.

“President Obama’s clarion call to action on the threat of climate change leaves no doubt this will be a priority in his second term,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“The politics are shifting rapidly on climate change and clean energy issues, in the wake of the recent drought, wildfires, Hurricane Sandy and other extreme weather events. With presidential leadership, that shift will continue and deepen over the next four years, and meaningful progress on climate change will become an important part of Barack Obama’s legacy as president.”

Response in tweets:

3/3 Great strong words on #climate at #inaug2013. The US President could not commit stronger to delivering now… #Obama

— Connie Hedegaard (@CHedegaardEU) January 21, 2013

“Some may still deny overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid devastating impact..fires/cripplingdrought/storms” #PresidentObama

— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) January 21, 2013

Obama has talked more about #climate in this one #inaug2013 speech than during entire re-election campaign

— Suzanne Goldenberg (@suzyji) January 21, 2013

Encouraged by #Obama pledge to tackle #Climate in 2nd term. We need US leadership for global solution, which must drive growth #Hope

— Greg Barker (@GregBarkerMP) January 21, 2013

And civil rights today includes climate change, the intergenerational equity challenge of our time and for each of us.

— Rachel Kyte (@rkyte365) January 21, 2013

Obama sounded good on climate. We’ll see.

— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) January 21, 2013

The post Obama calls on US to seize opportunity of clean energy revolution appeared first on Climate Home News.

– The day’s top climate change stories as chosen by RTCC
– Tweet @RTCCnewswire and use #RTCCLive hashtag
– Send your thoughts to jp@rtcc.org
– Updated from 0830-1700 BST (GMT+1)

Friday 11 January

EU: The EU has reacted with caution to speculation that President Obama intends to dramatically step up efforts to combat climate change in the wake of record temperatures and the impact of Hurricane Sandy. “You will remember that there was once a hurricane called Katrina that also led to big discussions [about climate change] so only time will tell. A single swallow doesn’t make a summer,” an EU source told the EurActiv news agency. (EurActiv)

China: The Chinese economy has cleaned up a little with the government announcing that carbon intensity, the volume of greenhouse gases per dollar of GDP, fell 3.5% during 2012. The country is aiming to reduce intensity by 40-45% by 2020 compared to 2005 levels as it shifts away from a manufacturing-based economy. (China Economic Review)

Canada: Indigenous people in Canada have vowed to “bring the economy to its knees” if the government does not halt plans to build an oil pipeline across western Canada. The Idle No More campaign, which has already been blocking railways, says native Canadians are unhappy with the proposal to connect the country’s Alberta tar sands to ports on the west coast, where it would be exported to Asia. (Reuters)

UAE: The UAE is to complete its greenhouse gas emissions inventory this year having already completed the work for the two most populous of its seven emirates, Dubai and Abu Dhabi. At the UN climate change conference in Doha last month, it pledged along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar that it would make a commitment to cut emissions through the UN in the near future. (The National)

US: Google has invested $200m in a wind farm in Texas. The figure put Google’s total investment in renewable energy at $990m. (EarthTechling)

The post EU cautious on Obama climate change u-turn appeared first on Climate Home News.

President Obama has said asking simple questions about his children’s future is partly responsible for his renewed urgency to act on climate change.

Speaking to Time Magazine after being named its Person of the Year for the second time, he said thinking about his kids had narrowed his focus on his legacy issues.

“Well, it’s a cliché, but it’s obviously true that for any parent, as you watch your kids age, you are reminded that everything you do has to have their futures in mind. You fervently hope they’re going to outlive you; that the world will be better for them when you’re not around. You start thinking about their kids,” said Obama.

President Obama has said climate change will be one of his top three issues during his second term. (Source: Flickr/Oporder)

“On an issue like climate change, for example, I think for this country and the world to ask some very tough questions about what are we leaving behind, that weighs on you. And not to mention the fact I think that generation is much more environmentally aware than previous generations,” he said.

There was no sign of a shift in US policy at the recent UN climate change talks in Doha, but the President has indicated that climate change could now feed into other issues during his second term.

“When we think about getting our fiscal house in order, when we think about climate change, when we think about the kind of economy that they’ll be inheriting and what opportunities they have, again, taking the long view is something that I’m constantly pushing for. And that’s particularly challenging in this job where your inbox of immediate crises are always coming at you.”

The post Obama: Climate change shift down to my kids appeared first on Climate Home News.

The survey, which interviewd 1002 people in the US, found that 77% want the government to be doing something about climate change.

While 20% wanted ‘some’ action, 22% thought that the US government could do ‘quite a bit’ on climate change and 35% of respondents said they want to see ‘ a great deal’ of action.

The survey also showed that 80% of Americans believe climate change could be a big problem for the US if no action is taken. 46% of those asked thought acting on climate change would help the country’s economy.

The poll follows other surveys released earlier this year that suggest belief in climate change is growing in the USA, and that citizens believe addressing the situation should be a priority.

It comes as environmentalists are pressing Obama to take a tougher stance on climate change during his second term in office.

In one move which could signal the government’s commitment to climate change, Senator John Kerry is expected to be announced as the new Secretary of State this week.

Kerry has shown a long commitment to global warming issues since his attendance at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

He is best known for a speech in the US Senate this year comparing climate change to the threat of war and for co-authoring legislation that would have capped US greenhouse gas emissions.

RTCC VIDEO: Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, says campaigns to confuse, driven by oil companies allied to the climate-hostile George W Bush Presidency set back attempts to raise awareness in the States.

The post 77% of Americans want action on climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

President Obama has pledged more work on climate change during his second term and to use green growth to develop national support for the climate agenda.

Speaking at his first press conference since re-election, Obama said consultations on this new push would begin immediately.

“What I’m going to be doing over the next several weeks, next several months, is having a conversation, a wide-ranging conversation with scientists, engineers, and elected officials to find out what more we can do to make a short-term progress in reducing carbon,” he said.

President Obama told a press conference that people could expect to hear more from him on climate change in the coming years. (Source:APEC)

He added that the resulting message must not appear to be at the cost of the economy as this would not win the backing of the public or the bi-partisan support required in Washington.

“If, on the other hand, we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth, and make a serious dent in climate change and be an international leader, I think that’s something that the American people would support.

“So you can expect that you’ll hear more from me in the coming months and years about how we can shape an agenda that garners bipartisan support and helps move this agenda forward,” he said.

There are growing calls for President Obama to establish a carbon tax with former vice-Presidential candidate turned climate advocate Al Gore adding his weight to the claims.

Gore joins a swathe of NGOs calling for the newly elected, and emboldened, President to examine the potential of tax on big polluters.

HSBC’s Nick Robins, head of the bank’s Climate Change Centre, told the Sydney Morning Herald that a tax of $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalent would halve the country’s deficit by 2022 compared to the 2012.

Doha UN talks

A domestic tax on US carbon emissions would be warmly welcomed at the UN climate change negotiations in Doha this month, where the country’s position is often criticised.

UN climate change chief Christiana Figueres told RTCC the election result had given the USA a window of opportunity to increase its ambition on the domestic and global stage.

“The United States now has the opportunity with a clear political mandate, because we all heard President Obama’s acceptance speech that he’s not willing to look at a future threatened by increasing global temperatures,” she said.

“So they do have the opportunity to use everything that they already have in place, to take it one step further at the domestic level and at the international level to strengthen their participation both with their support for developing countries and what they are doing as well as increase their leadership to ensure that governments will take on a universal agreement in 2015,” she added.

Despite an imminent restructuring of tax in the US as it approaches the so-called “fiscal cliff”, the probability of a carbon tax remains low.

“There is definitely press attention around the possibility, and some folks have moved a carbon tax from the ‘almost impossible’ category into the ‘long shot’ category,” said Brandon Wu, senior policy analyst at ActionAid USA.

“We would certainly support a carbon tax that is designed to be progressive and revenue-raising – this is a huge opportunity both to disincentivise greenhouse gas emissions and, just as importantly, raise money for climate finance and other social goods,” added Wu.

There have been discussions among several think tanks in the US about a new carbon tax that is offset by tax cuts elsewhere, thought to be a more appealing deal to Republicans. This however, would make no net contribution to deficit reduction, but would encourage emission reductions from industry.

The post Obama pledges climate change leadership in second term appeared first on Climate Home News.

Climate change should be made a priority for the President and for Congress according to 77% of Americans in a new poll.

The survey by Yale Project on Climate Change Communication also unearthed resounding support for clean energy with 92% of those asked saying it should be a very high (31%), high (38%) or medium priority (23%) for both Congress and the President.

Would the Romney-Ryan Election campaign have chosen a different line in climate change armed with this polling data? (Source: World Affairs Council of Philadelphia)

The interviews were carried out between August 31 and September 12, two months before the US election and Hurricane Sandy, which was credited with bringing climate change back into the political debate days before the polls opened.

Both candidates had been silent on climate issues prior to the Hurricane.

Asked who they thought influenced elected officials on climate issues 50% said large campaign contributors have “a lot” of influence and 42% said fossil- fuel companies. Only 22% said environmentalists have a lot of influence and just 20% said the same of climate scientists.

National climate change policies have struggled to gain traction in Washington with the Republican Party, which controls Congress, deeply hostile to climate action.

State level actions have fared better with most establishing targets for renewable energy generation.

California’s landmark carbon trading platform will auction its first emissions allowances today and joins the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) programme which includes nine states.

Despite calls for the election’s winner Barack Obama to push climate change up the agenda, no great shift is anticipated at the next round of UN climate change talks in Doha.

The post Survey shows 77% of Americans think climate change is a priority appeared first on Climate Home News.

President Obama can now establish a strong leadership position at the UN climate change negotiations, according to the talks’ chief Christiana Figueres.

UN climate chief Christiana Figueres says now is the time for the US to display climate change leadership. (Source: Flickr/UNFCCC)

Speaking to BusinessGreen, Figueres said the continuity provided by Obama’s win meant the country could make a significant contribution the negotiations next meeting in Qatar at the end of the month.

“The US has the opportunity to contribute to the very important outcomes needed at Doha and show the leadership that comes with the type of economy and size of economy that the United States is,” said Figueres.

The US has long stressed that it would not sign up to internationally binding emissions reductions until other major economies, particularly China, did the same.

China and other emerging economies maintained that with little historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, the burden should lie elsewhere.

Last year’s talks in Durban saw all countries, including the US and China, agree to start negotiations on a new deal on emissions reductions for all, to be agreed by 2015, with cuts starting in 2020.

“Governments have been working very hard and seriously over the last 11 months to prepare for the decisions that they will take in Doha,” she said. “I have no evidence other than commitment both to hard work and finding a common ground for agreement.”

The Doha talks will also establish a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which applies only to developed nations.

Related articles:

VIDEO: Huhne and Figueres vent frustration with US position at COP17

USA: Developing countries should contribute to Green Climate Fund

How can President Obama effectively address climate change?

The post Obama can drive climate action at Doha talks: Figueres appeared first on Climate Home News.

Some US election commentators are amazed that two candidates with such different proposals for the future of their country are running so close together in the polls.

On its own that says something about the political polarisation that currently afflicts America.

But when you look at certain policy areas, it can be difficult to tell President Obama and Mitt Romney apart. The presidential debate on foreign policy was a little bit like a competition to see who agreed with the other the most.

On energy, Romney’s plan to exploit more domestic fossil fuels is more or less the same as Obama’s strategy, only on steroids. With ample shale gas and the promise of big oil hauls off its coasts, the US government’s preference for fossil fuels is a given for at least another 200 billion barrels.

On many issues, Romney and Obama are two sides of the same coin. (Credit: Flickr/PosterBoyNYC/VDub144)

On climate change, the well-publicised silence was broken by the crash of Superstorm Sandy clattering into one of the most densely populated areas of the US.

Tom Steyer, labelled “the richest climate change champion in the US” offered another steroid-related analogy to explain extreme weather’s relation to climate change.

“The connection between extreme weather events and climate change is like that between steroids and home runs: you can’t tie any one home run to steroid usage, but the number and distance sure increase,” says Steyer.

The storm seems to have given Obama a mini-bump in the polls but nothing that stretches beyond the margin for error. It’s anyone’s race, but if you’re following the UN climate change negotiations, it doesn’t really matter who wins.

Related articles:

Why climate change was not ignored in the US Presidential debate

Republicans bid to stop Obama’s ‘War on Coal’

Romney and Obama quiz on climate change and energy highlights how close their policies really are

While America wrestles with the concept of climate change and its existence  evidence continues to amass suggesting we are headed for 6°C of warming. The IPCC recommends that we should stay below 2°C, a figure that has been adopted by policymakers.

The fragile UN talks need active participation from the US by 2015, the cut off point for a new global deal on emissions reductions. This will be on the next president’s watch and they will determine the extent of that involvement.

Obama’s negotiating team only allowed the deal agreed at the last UN climate summit to go through because it did not include the concept of Common But Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR). This “firewall” between rich and poor nations is designed to ensure the greatest actions to address climate change come from those with the largest responsibility for causing it.

Its inclusion in a future deal could prove to be a thorny issue. At an intermediary round of talks in Bonn this May, the States’ climate number two, Jonathan Pershing, was at pains to stress the country’s position on CBDR and that a deal with actions from all, rich and poor, was the only deal the US was interested in.

In the immediate future, Obama’s team will be at the impending talks in Doha regardless of the election result, even though they will be aware that their remit could run out in January.

Blinking contest

Michael Zammit Cutajar, the first Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) believes that US inaction on climate change is a stance linked to the national mindset, not necessarily to any one Administration.

“The US position on climate change has morphed into a sub-plot of the US and China position on the geopolitical stage. The result is a tendency to stand-off. They do both have a shared preference to not tie their hands with international treaties imposed from the top down,” he said.

This is certainly true. State legislation, not federal, has driven much of the positive action to address climate change in the States. It has catapulted California into prominence for its work reducing transport emissions, promoting renewable energy and developing a state-wide cap and trade system.

Emissions trading has also been embraced by a coalition of states on the Eastern Seaboard but at a national level, it would struggle to pass through Congress without a major shift in public opinion.

That brings us back full circle to Superstorm Sandy.

The greater acceptance there is that extreme weather events and unpredictable rainy seasons are connected with climate variability, the more unacceptable inaction will become to voters.

The political weight of the droughts will perhaps not be felt until the consequences of poor harvests hit Western Supermarket prices. When it comes, the respsonse could be severe.

Insurance companies could also play a role in shifting US climate policy. Increasingly fed up with being forced to insure vulnerable homes and infrastructure within prescribed price constraints, they can exert considerable pressure on an Administration in denial. As experts in assessing risk, they want the Government to start factoring in climate change to. Major investors and (most) industry agree too.

Regardless of who wins on Tuesday, disgruntled consumers and big business have made the link between the shifting climate and a number extreme weather events, from Sandy to Colorado wildfires to the widespread drought. When consensus develops in these two groups and calls for climate action are mainstream, no US president will be able to ignore them. That’s change you can believe in.

Campaign promises are one thing, but once the votes are cast and the inauguration complete, those promises become far looser. The two candidates manifestos look remarkably similar on energy and both endorse similar degrees of inaction at the international climate talks.

Obama has spoken out on climate change repeatedly, “it is not a hoax” he bluntly stated in September.

So if both candidates pledge to do nothing on climate change, who is the greater sinner? The man who denies there is a problem in the first place, or the President who said climate change “will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet”?

RTCC VIDEO: Former UN climate talks chief Michael Zammit Cutajar analyses US position at international climate talks

The post USA election 2012: Why Obama or Romney is a vote for 6°C appeared first on Climate Home News.

– The day’s top climate change stories as chosen by RTCC
– Tweet @RTCCnewswire and use #RTCCLive hashtag
– Send your thoughts to jp@rtcc.org
– Updated from 0830-1700 BST (GMT+1)

Monday 29 October

Last updated: 1530

Poland: The Polish environment minister Marcin Korolec has claimed that the EU’s decision not to ban the carry-over of carbon credits from the first Kyoto commitment period into the second period is about ensuring flexibility. Korolec said the decision was to protect “our right to preserve and dispose of the emissions reductions achieved under the Kyoto Protocol”. Critics however, say Poland wants to ensure it has enough credits to permit it to stick to its coal-dependant, carbon intensive economy. (UPI)

Qatar: Imams in Qatar will turn the spotlight on environmental issues during the UN climate change agency’s COP18 summit in Doha. The Holy Quran includes 1500 verses related to the environment. Around 150 mosques in the country will host lectures on reducing energy and resource consumption, climate change and other environmental challenges on November 27.

Geneva: A new atlas of climate change health impacts has been launched by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). The report links outbreaks of malaria, dengue and even meningitis as a result of climate variability and extreme events such as floods. (AlertNet)

US: The post-election future of the key subsidy for wind energy in the US looks slightly brighter after the possibility of a compromise appeared. President Obama has said he would retain the Production Tax Credit (PTC) but Romney is keen to shelve it. However, Republican plans for a gradual phase-out have emerged, that would be preferable to its complete removal on January 1, 2013. (New York Times)

South Korea: President Lee Myung-bak has placed climate change among the country’s top three priorities as it celebrated its election to the UN Security Council. Speaking at an event in Seoul to mark the event the President said South Korea was committed to: “The recovery of the world economy and maintaining world peace. I would also like to state that we will get actively involved in getting the world prepared for climate change.”

South Korea was recently selected to host the UN’s Green Climate Fund, held the Ministerial meeting ahead of the Doha climate talks and is the venue for the 2014 UN Convention on Biodiversity’s biannual summit. (Yonhap News Agency)

US: President Barack Obama has broken his climate silence during the weekend. He told MTV: “We’re not moving as fast as we need to. I am surprised it didn’t come up in the debates.” Obama listed a number of energy efficiency standards enforced during his presidency and stressed the need to pursue new technologies that would allow the economy and the climate to be helped in tandem.

“If we do those things then we can meet the targets I negotiated with other countries in Copenhagen to bring our emissions down by about 17%.” (TreeHugger)

Worldwide: The global consumption of coal reached record levels last year threatening to derail the world’s carbon emission reduction efforts. Coal’s share of energy consumption rose from 25% to 30%, taking it the highest level since 1969, according to figures from the World Coal Association. Coal emits more carbon dioxide and other pollutants than alternative fossil fuels such as gas. (The Guardian)

The post President Obama breaks his climate silence on MTV appeared first on Climate Home News.

US President Barack Obama gave hope to climate activists around the world with a strong defence of his green policies during his main speech at the Democrat Convention on Thursday night.

Hitting back at claims from many Republicans that the origins of global warming are unknown, Obama said the science on climate change was settled and that the time to act is now.

“My plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax,” he said.

“More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future. And in this election, you can do something about it.”

July was the hottest month in US history. Soaring temperatures and a lack of rain have hit wheat, corn and soy farmers – driving up prices on the global futures’ markets.

Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney mocked the current administration’s attempts to deal with the climate change during his own main speech last week.

“President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet…my promise…is to help you and your family,” he said.

President Obama: “My plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet—because climate change is not a hoax.”

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) September 7, 2012

What’s worse: doing nothing when you think climate change is a hoax, or doing nothing even though you know it isn’t a hoax? @barackobama

— Richard Klein (@rjtklein) September 7, 2012

This speech was not a promise to drastically slash US CO2 emissions. Obama has adopted an ‘all of the above’ policy when it comes to energy, backing domestic fossil-fuel production, including the exploitation of shale gas.

But he argued his approach is more independent and less reliant on the major oil and gas companies – many of whom have backed huge campaigns in the past to tarnish the reputations and findings of climate scientists.

“Unlike my opponent, I will not let oil companies write this country’s energy plan, or endanger our coastlines, or collect another $4 billion in corporate welfare from our taxpayer,” he said.

“We’re offering a better path – a future where we keep investing in wind and solar and clean coal; where farmers and scientists harness new biofuels to power our cars and trucks; where construction workers build homes and factories that waste less energy; where we develop a hundred year supply of natural gas that’s right beneath our feet.

“If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.”

Hopes for a global climate deal

Despite these positive comments, there is still deep mistrust over US motives at the UN climate negotiations.

The country refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, despite being involved in its creation, and has consistently demanded that other high emitters such as China and India adopt targets before it will commit to limit its own carbon emissions.

Last week US delegate Jonathan Pershing was accused of undermining the UN climate talks after calling for a new treaty to be ‘flexible’ and ‘dynamic’ rather than legally binding, as was agreed at the end of the COP17 Durban talks in 2011.

Pershing argued a new deal should learn from what he termed the mistakes of the Kyoto Protocol, claiming that what he described as Protocol’s inflexibility guaranteed its failure.

And lead US negotiator Todd Stern angered many of his peers last month with a call for the target of keeping global warming below 2C to be dropped – claiming it would lead to deadlock.

Stern later said he had been misunderstood, but emphasised the need for talks to be ‘flexible’.

VIDEO: Watch Barack Obama’s acceptance speech in full

The post Obama: “Climate change is not a joke” appeared first on Climate Home News.

With the Republican and Democrat conventions almost behind us, US Presidential Election candidates took part in an online debate on science this week with climate change and energy featuring prominently.

Looking at their answers  reveals key differences (and similarities) between the two candidate’s positions and offers some clues as to what the world can expect from the US after the 2012 election.

Climate change

While President Obama spoke a good game on climate change in the build-up to the 2008 election, ultimately he hasn’t pushed the country’s stance forward significantly.

Some commentators in the US have said that the recently released Democratic National Platform 2012, effectively his manifesto, has a softer take on climate change than the one that got him elected.

Mitt Romney has been accused of “flip-flopping” on climate change. His Massachusetts climate plan from 2004 during his tenure as governor there is certainly a departure from his stance during the Republican primaries when he distanced himself significantly.

Now he has come back to the fold, albeit slightly.

Obama:

“Climate change is the one of the biggest issues of this generation, and we have to meet this challenge by driving smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean energy generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits.

“We are also showing international leadership on climate change, reaching historic agreements to set emission limits in unison with all major developed and developing nations. There is still more to be done to address this global problem.”

Romney:

“I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences.

“The reality is that the problem is called Global Warming, not America Warming…the primary effect of unilateral action by the US to impose costs on its own emissions will be to shift industrial activity overseas.”

Energy

The candidates have more in common with their energy policies. Both want more drilling onshore and offshore including off the coast f Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico. The main difference is the scale and speed of this expansion. Both ultimately support the Keystone XL pipeline, Obama is just advocating a more rigorous approvals process.

The key difference is perhaps that Obama is in favour of continuing support to develop renewable energy whereas Romney has pledged energy independence for the US by 2020 through domestic fossil fuel resources.

Obama:

“[I support]… the safe, responsible development of America’s near 100-year supply of natural gas that will help support more than 600,000 jobs.

“Part of our strategy is also to use the natural resources we have more efficiently, so we are less reliant on other countries in the first place.

“I know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the global economy in the 21st century.

“I have supported an all-of-the-above energy approach that will allow us to take control of our energy future, one where we safely and responsibly develop America’s many energy resources – including natural gas, wind, solar, oil, clean coal, and biofuels – while investing in clean energy and increasing fuel efficiency standards to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

Romney:

“A crucial component of my plan for a stronger middle class is to dramatically increase domestic energy production and partner closely with Canada and Mexico to achieve North American energy independence by 2020.

“The key is to embrace these resources and open access to them.

“I will pursue a course that designs regulation not to stifle energy production but instead to facilitate responsible use of all energy sources

“I support robust government funding for research on efficient, low-emissions technologies that will maintain American leadership in emerging industries.

“I remain committed to implementing and enforcing strong environmental protections that ensure all energy development activity is conducted in a safe and responsible manner.”

The debate was hosted by ScienceDebate.org.

Related articles:

Obama reaffirms commitment to UN climate change talks in key election document

Mitt Romney’s plan for climate change? Dial 211

The United States of Climate Change #3: The Montana hunters targeting big changes in the US climate debate

The post Romney and Obama quiz on climate change and energy highlights how close their policies really are appeared first on Climate Home News.

President Obama’s Democratic Party has pledged its ongoing support to the UN climate change process in its 2012 National Platform document released today.

The policy plan outlines the Party’s position on a number of issues ahead of November’s election with climate change and related concerns featuring prominently.

Obama's pre-election stance includes climate change as an energy, environmental and security challenge. (Source: Flickr/anhonourablegerman)

“The President and the Democratic Party have steadily worked to build an international framework to combat climate change. We will seek to implement agreements and build on the progress made during climate talks in Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban, working to ensure a response to climate change policy that draws upon decisive action by all nations.”

The 2012 platform also states the importance of ensuring action from economies that are seen as representing a new threat to US trade.

“Our goal is an effective, international effort in which all major economies commit to reduce their emissions, nations meet their commitments in a transparent manner, and the necessary financing is mobilized so that developing countries can mitigate the effects of climate change and invest in clean energy technologies.

“That is why the Obama administration has taken a leadership role in ongoing climate negotiations, working to ensure that other major economies like China and India commit to taking meaningful action.”

The US has been accused of going backwards at the current UN climate talks in Bangkok after they requested that a new deal on emissions should provide flexibility.

Election rival Mitt Romney has no mention of climate change in his campaign and in fact derided the issue during a speech at the Republican Convention last week. He has proposed to make the US energy independent by 2020 by ramping-up plans for offshore drilling and shale gas exploration.

While perhaps not as strong as the 2008 equivalent document, the 2012 edition refers to climate change threats as “real, urgent, and severe”.

The document also pledges to cut fossil fuel subsidies for “profitable oil companies” while driving investment in clean energy.

On Arctic drilling, the Democrats have taken a similar line to that of Russia stating that “Democrats are committed to balancing environmental protection with development, and that means preserving sensitive public lands from exploration, like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Pacific West Coast, Gulf of Maine, and other irreplaceable national landscapes.”

Related articles:

Bangkok 2012 – USA accused of backtracking on legally binding UN climate treaty

Mitt Romney’s plan for climate change? Dial 211

Obama tells crowd: “Denying climate change won’t make it stop”

The post Obama reaffirms commitment to UN climate change talks in key election document appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Obama administration has thrown its weight behind the biofuels industry in the wake of the Navy’s successful trials of the technology.

The Pentagon is one of the biggest backers of biofuels which it sees as an opportunity to buffer itself from fossil fuel price shocks. It is the largest buyer of fossil fuels in the world.

Despite this argument, there is a move in the US Congress to block the Department of Defense from investing in alternative fuels until they have price parity with their conventional counterparts.

Speaking after a successful trial by the Navy’s Great Green Fleet, the administration reiterated its ongoing commitment to biofuels.

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus (blue shirt) observes an at sea biofuel replenishment by the Great Green Fleet. (Source: Flickr/USNavy)

Heather Zichal, President Obama’s deputy assistant for energy and climate change described moves to block investments in the sector as “short sighted and disappointing”.

Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus said his organisation was well placed to open the biofuels market to other sectors.

“The Navy [as a major customer] can help make biofuels price competitive,” said Mabus. “There were representatives from the airline industry on board the aircraft carrier during the trial. They’re also looking for alternative fuels.”

US Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack highlighted the role that the sector has on the economy.

“There are 400,000 people already employed directly or indirectly by biofuels and this figure could rise to one million,” said Secretary Vilsack.

“This is not just about energy security, there is an opportunity to build a bioeconomy. It’s healthy for fossil fuels to have some competition and we already know that US consumers pay less at the pump because of the domestic ethanol industry.

“We can make biofuels a win for everybody; our economy, our military and our farmers,” said Vilsack.

Biofuels are criticised for displacing food production as the feedstocks for the fuels can sometimes offer a better return for farmers than growing crops for human consumption.

Vilsack moved to allay these fears saying that no crops or land for food would be replaced with energy crops.

Doubts

ActionAid USA has raised doubts over some of the claims made by the administration. They say that promoting biofuels,  ethanol in particular, will only drive up food prices in the long-term.

They also questioned Secretary Vilsack’s claims that no food would be displaced by the country’s growing biofuel industry.

“At best, if ethanol-bound corn is being processed as biobutenol it will perpetuate the current food and fuel competition. At worst, it could expand the amount of corn going for fuel instead of food or feed, deepening the competition for ever shrinking available land,” said the group.

RELATED LINKS

18 July 2012: US Great Green Fleet sets sail
26 April 2012: EU “will not abandon” biofuels in face of renewed criticism
6 March 2012: Gingrich calls US Navy backed algae biofuels “cloud cuckoo land”

The post Obama administration backs biofuels as triple win for military, economy and agriculture appeared first on Climate Home News.

– The day’s top climate change stories as chosen by RTCC
– Tweet @RTCCnewswire and use #RTCCLive hashtag
– Send your thoughts to jp@rtcc.org
– Updated at 0900, 1300, 1700 BST (GMT+1)

Monday 2 July
Last updated: 17300 BST

Latest News

Gillard tweeted today: Day 2 of the #carbonprice and the sky hasn’t fallen. Households are receiving help through cash payments, pension increases & tax cuts.

Whatever you do today – check the video at the bottom – 2 mins in. And remember this bloke is a Minister of State.

IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri says he’s lost faith in governments to tackle climate change – it’s time now he says for ‘people power’.

Suzlon’s chief in Brazil tells RTCC wind power will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2020.

Australia’s new carbon tax came into effect overnight on Sunday. Big polluters, including city councils and mining firms, will pay A$23 per tonne of carbon they emit. The unpopular policy could cost Prime Minister Julia Gillard her job.

The Colorado wildfires continued to burn at the weekend. President Obama visited the disaster struck area which a prominent scientist saying that the fires were “what global warming really looks like”.

India’s weather forecasting dept says Monsoon rains are 29% below normal for June this year – the BBC reports that the Indian govt are launching a £48m research programme to predict the rains more accurately.

Japan switched on a nuclear reactor for the first time since the tsunami-induced Fukushima accident. The country’s carbon emissions have surged since the disaster which forced it to increase its reliance on fossil fuels.

UK MPs will vote today on a home energy efficiency scheme called the Green Deal. It’s a major plank in the government’s carbon cutting strategy. Buildings account for nearly 40% of UK emissions – as it stands the aim of the policy is to ensure consumers pay nothing upfront – and pay for the work through a levy on their energy bills.

Nature Climate Change are reporting today that climate change could cause Leatherback turtle populations in Costa Rica to collapse by 2100.

Big question

Did climate change start the Colorado fires? We recommend this excellent article by David Roberts on The Grist – it’s more complicated than you might think.

Top Tweets

Wish this was a joke–in Ohio, they’re planning to frack cemeteries. centredaily.com/2012/06/30/324… HT @RL_Miller

— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben) July 1, 2012

Day 2 of the #carbonprice and the sky hasn’t fallen. Households are receiving help through cash payments, pension increases & tax cuts. JG

— Julia Gillard (@JuliaGillard) July 2, 2012

Fantastic podcast: Are women the key to moving #climate change debate forward? ow.ly/bUA7t @RTCCnewswire

— TckTckTck (@tcktcktck) June 29, 2012

Stat of the Day

Website Climate Central have reported that 1,924 daily high temperature records were set or tied in the USA between June 24-30. Despite being summer in the UK, rain is now the big threat after months of much of the country being in ‘drought’. Environment minister Caroline Spelman warned of increased ‘extreme weather events’ at the weekend – and no wonder. June 2012 has been one of the wettest on record.

Video of the day

Australia’s new carbon tax was met with a mixed response, with some commentators predicting the ‘start of a dark time’. But no-one expected this response on air from Australia’s Trade and Industry Minister. Around 2 mins in….just bizarre.

The post Climate Live: Fires rage in Colorado, turtles under threat and Aussie Minister Craig Emerson makes a song ‘n’ dance about carbon tax appeared first on Climate Home News.

The G8 leaders have agreed to join the US-led programme to reduce short-term climate forcers such as methane and soot.

The G8 leaders agreed to join President Obama's voluntary greenhouse gas reduction scheme. (Source: Whitehouse/Pete Souza)

The scheme works to establish projects in developing countries to reduce the emissions of methane, hydroflurocarbons (HFCs) and soot, all which can have a greater warming effect than carbon dioxide, but a shorter lifetime in the atmosphere.

“By developing strategies to reduce short-term pollutants – chiefly methane, black carbon, and HFCs – we can help reduce global warming, improve health, and increase agricultural productivity, as well as energy security,” the group said in a statement released following their latest meeting in Chicago.

The voluntary scheme already includes Sweden, Canada, Ghana, Bangladesh and Mexico.

Speaking at the launch of the initiative in February, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said: “In the principal effort necessary to reduce the effects of carbon dioxide, the world has not done enough. This scheme will support, not supplant the efforts made by the UNFCCC.”

Environmental groups warned at the time that the work must absolutely not supplant work to reduce carbon dioxide.

The G8 also agreed to commission the World Bank to investigate methods to finance the scheme’s work.

They also commissioned the IEA to produce more work looking specifically at disruption to the supply of oil and gas.

The IEA will also be asked to assess renewable energy policies including incentives and changes to grid networks, across the G8 countries.

G8 climate and energy conclusions

Investigate ways to increase protection from loss of oil and gas supply

Assess renewable energy policies via the IEA

Support Clean Energy Ministerial’s work on energy efficiency

Join the US voluntary emissions scheme

Support reassessment of nuclear energy safety by the IAEA

The post G8 leaders sign-up to Obama and Clinton’s climate plan appeared first on Climate Home News.

The US is the second largest CO2 emitter in the world. A third of its emissions are from transportation. (Source:Flickr/Paul Lowry)

President Obama has called on the US to “wean itself off” fossil fuels, during a campaign speech in North Carolina.

Speaking at a Daimler factory, Obama said tackling high fuel prices meant improving efficiency and exploring clean energy technologies.

“It’s going to take us a while to wean ourselves off of the old and grab the new,” said Obama.

“We’ve got to develop every source of American energy – not just oil and gas, but wind power and solar power, nuclear power, biofuels. We need to invest in the technology that will help us use less oil in our cars and our trucks, in our buildings, in our factories. That’s the only solution to the challenge. Because as we start using less, that lowers the demand, prices come down.”

The cost of a gallon of gasoline has risen $0.48 since the turn of the year making energy a hot topic in this year’s election.

Republican contender Newt Gingrich has pledged to reduced the cost to $2.50 from around $3.70 at present.

Obama dismissed the policy as “phony election-year promises”.

The President also repeated his call for an end to fossil fuel subsidies.

“It’s time to end that taxpayer giveaway to an industry that’s never been more profitable, [and to] invest in clean energy that’s never been more promising,” said the President.

The US is the second largest emitter of CO2 in the world. A third of these are from transportation.

The post Obama calls for American people to wean themselves off fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.

Newt Gingrich has mocked algal biofuels, which the US Navy is pursuing with vigour. (Source: Gage Skidmore)

Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has repeated his mocking of algae based biofuels, despite the fact that the US Navy has conducted the world’s largest trials of the technology so far.

At a campaign event on the eve of Super Tuesday, Gingrich mocked a recent speech by President Obama on energy.

“Maybe we should, as an experiment, get some algae and go to a gas station, and you know, sort of the ‘Barack Solution.’ Would you like some algae instead of gasoline? This is the kind of stuff that’s Cloud Cuckoo Land,” Gingrich said.

In January this year, the US Navy trialled 20,000 gallons of algal fuel in 50:50 mix with conventional fuels.

Despite the very real nature of algae based biofuels, Gingrich has been mocking the President’s reference to it last month, ever since.

“I think this is a ‘Saturday Night Live’ skit. You don’t often get presidential speeches that could literally be delivered on ‘Saturday Night Live’ and you wouldn’t realise it was a fake,” he said, referring to the satirical comedy show that frequently parodies the country’s politicians.

“But presidents are supposed to, like, run the country today.”

Speaking at the time of the Navy trial, Lieutenant Commander Frank Kim said: “It’s going to be pretty amazing to see where these fuels take us in the future. This might be the largest demonstration to date but it is not the last.”

“We use the same types of trucks, hoses and other dockside equipment to transfer the fuel, and no modifications are required either from a fuelling perspective or on the shipboard side,” said Lt. Cmdr. Kim.

If elected, Gingrich would become Commander and Chief of the US armed forces, which believes climate change is a clear and present danger to national security.

The Department of Defense has described climate change as “threat multiplier” that jeopardises national security.

In addition to the Navy’s projects, the US Army has a $7bn renewable energy investment plan, while the US Air Force currently has 194 renewable energy schemes under construction.

VIDEO: Rear Admiral David W. Titley explains why the US Navy is taking climate change seriously.

The post Gingrich calls US Navy backed algae biofuels “cloud cuckoo land” appeared first on Climate Home News.

President Obama called for the US Congress to vote to end subsidies to fossil guel companies (© White House/Pete Souza)

President Obama has called on the US Congress to vote to an end to fossil fuel subsidies.

Speaking at Nashua Community College in New Hampshire President Obama called on Americans to contact their representatives and call on them to vote out subsidies under the 2013 budget.

“Right now, $4 billion of your tax dollars – $4 billion – subsidise the oil industry every year,” he said.

“These companies are making record profits right now – tens of billion of dollars a year. Every time you go to the gas tank or fill up your gas tank, they’re making money. Every time. Now does anyone really think that Congress should give them another $4 billion this year?”

“Of course not. It’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable. And I am asking Congress – eliminate this oil giveaway right away…Let’s put every single member of Congress on record: You can stand with the oil companies, or you can stand up for the American people.”

“You can keep subsidising a fossil fuel that’s been getting taxpayer dollars for a century, or you can place your bets on a clean-energy future.”

One average the US are said to offer around $4 to $5 billion per year on fossil fuel subsides, but one analysis last year from the Environmental Law Institute found that the government offered $72 billion in incentives for oil, gas and coal producers between 2002 and 2008 – nearing $10 billion per year.

In 2010, $409 billion was spent globally on fossil-fuel subsides, artificially lowering the price of coal gas and oil.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) have warned that, while frequently touted as poverty-assistance measures, in reality subsides significantly underpriced energy in many parts of the world, leading to wasteful consumption, price volatility and fuel smuggling.

They also believe subsides undermine investment in renewables and their removal would see economic, energy security and environmental benefits.

IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol, a well-known advocate for the end to fossil fuel subsidies, believes ending such payments could provide more than half the savings needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

Obama echoed the sentiments of European Commissioner Connie Hedegaard.

Earlier this week she called on the phasing out of global subsidies ahead of the Rio+20 conferences to be held in June.

Ahead of Obama’s election campaign, where energy independance and clean energy will be key issues he also used the speech to push for further investment driving clean-technology industries.

While acknowledging the road towards a more diverse energy mix would be tough, Obama called the move necessary saying “our [America’s] future depends on it.”

“It’s not going to be smooth easy rise. Some of the clean-energy technologies that are discovered, they won’t pan out. Some companies will fail. There’s going to be experiments and research that take time,” he said.

“I’m not going to cede the wind or the solar or the battery industry to China or Germany because some politicians in Washington refused to make the same commitment here in the United States of America,” he added.

President Obama’s opponents have criticised this stance, saying the call to end fossil fuel subsidies would do nothing to help lower the price of gasoline for average American.

The price of gasoline rose to $3.74 a gallon this week, up from the $3.44 per gallon average recorded last month.

The post Obama calls on Congress to end fossil-fuel subsides appeared first on Climate Home News.

President Obama's budget plans have irked Republicans who say it will destroy jobs. (Source: White House/Pete Souza)

President Obama demonstrated a strong shift in favour of green issues in a budget speech yesterday with clean power and energy efficiency funding boosted.

The budget is highly unlikely to be passed and is considered as a political statement rather than an enforceable plan.

“We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by ending the subsidies for oil companies, and doubling down on clean energy that generates jobs and strengthens our security,” said President Obama.

Funding for Department of Energy’s research arm is earmarked to remain stable at $325m with a separate fund looking at other clean technology, such as electric cars receiving $420m.

The current raft of tax breaks and incentives for fossil fuel companies, totally $40bn, would be cut under the proposals.

The document, which Obama described as “a blueprint for next year’s budget”, also includes an extension of the loan capacity for nuclear energy facilities from a maximum of $18bn to $54bn.

Interestingly, funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS), listed on the budget as the “Clean Coal Initiative”, has been removed.

Energy efficiency was also central to the proposed plan with a $6bn residential retrofit scheme included.

The document also includes some initiatives within the Government itself. It proposes that the Treasury should go paperless, with a saving of $500m and embassy roofs should be painted white to cut bills for air conditioning.

“For the fourth year in a row, the White House should have written its budget in red ink instead of black,” said Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling.

“It does nothing to address the real drivers of our debt, but does everything to accelerate our nation’s slide into bankruptcy,” he added.

Obama faces a further test of his green credentials this week as Republicans attempt to push the Keystone XL pipeline, which he rejected last month, through the Senate.

The post Obama budget boosts clean energy and cuts fossil fuel subsidies appeared first on Climate Home News.

US President Barack Obama used his annual State of the Union address to explain how he is committed to promoting ‘clean energy’ across the country.

In his speech to Congress, Obama said he was determined to deal with the USA’s addiction to oil and gas.

And he stressed that this was part of a strategy that could see the USA’s faltering economy recover on the back of investment in clean and green technology.

But the President effectively admitted that the chances of the US agreeing to a global deal to curb climate change were slim.

“The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change,” Obama said.

“But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted. Well tonight, I will.

“I’m directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes.

“And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history – with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.”

The US Navy is one of the world’s biggest investors in low-carbon research and development, and recently tested a form of algae-based biofuel with shipping giants Maersk.

It has already committed to cutting 50% off its conventional oil consumption by 2020.

Economic growth through green growth

With economic growth in the USA stagnating, Obama stressed the role new technologies could play in revitalising American industry.

Citing the subsidies enjoyed by fossil-fuel producers in the US, Obama said it was time to create a level playing-field for all energy producers.

“I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here,” he said.

“We have subsidised oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.”

Low hanging fruit

And in a country where cheap oil, large cars and a laissez-faire attitude to energy efficiency has ruled for much of the past 50 years, Obama stressed there were easy ways for the USA to cut its reliance on oil and gas

“The easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here’s another proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings,” he said.

“Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.”

Congress reaction:

Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)

“Our Make It In America plan will help manufacturers expand and hire more workers, develop American energy and support new, home-grown alternative energy technologies.”

Newt Gingrich (2012 Presidential Candidate)

“Only recently, the president canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline that would have created countless new jobs and helped America on the way to energy independence because he wanted to appease the far left of his party.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)

“Republicans will also continue pushing for the Keystone project, which the president did not mention tonight despite his recent decision to destroy 20,000 American jobs.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)

“The President’s favoritism continues into his view on energy. Last week we saw the President side with his friends in the environmental lobby by denying the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. Then, while the President highlights massive cuts to the Department of Defense, he also announced that they will be forced to purchase his preferred type of energy – clean energy.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)

“We can start with the President’s ideas to expand American energy, whether from our natural resources or renewable sources such as biofuels including ethanol.  But we can and should do better–for the economy, the environment and America’s push for greater energy independence.”

GREEN OR GREENWASH? Have your say on Obama’s speech

The post Obama: I will act on causes of climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.

Keystone XL will not add to the many miles of pipeline already running through the US (Source: flickr/DaveSusiBezaire)

The company behind the Keystone XL oil pipeline will submit plans for a new route following the rejection of its original application yesterday.

As reported on the RTCC Climate Curate last night, President Obama rejected the controversial pipeline between Canada and the US.

TransCanada has said it anticipated the decision and will proceed with a new route.

“While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and CEO.

The verdict on the original route was expected in 2013 to allow further assessment but Republicans forced the decision to be made sooner.

“This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline,” said the President, “but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil,” he added.

The project would transport oil derived from the Canadian tar sands from Alberta to refineries on the US Gulf coast, 2700km away.

The route passed over one of the largest water aquifers in America raising concerns among environmental groups over the effect of any leak on the nation’s water supply.

NASA climate scientist James Hansen has said that exploiting oil from the tar sands will result in CO2 levels reaching critical levels, calling it “game-over for the climate”.

Supporters of the project, including labour unions, said it would create thousands of new jobs.

“President Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese. There’s really just no other way to put it,” said John Boehner, the Republican House Speaker.

Obama delayed a decision till 2013 in order to conduct further environmental impact assessments. Critics accused him of avoiding in the issue during an election year.

The EU is currently working on legislation that would classify oil from tar sands in a “dirtier” bracket and create an obstacle to imports of the fuel in the process. The UK and Netherlands are opposed to the changes.

Canada hopes Keystone XL will open up a North American market for tar sands fuel as it does not currently have the port facilities to ship it overseas.

VIDEO: John Boehner, the Republican House Speaker on the Keystone XL decision

The post New Keystone XL route planned following Obama rejection appeared first on Climate Home News.

Mitt Romney was the front runner for the Republican nomination at the time of the first vote in Iowa. (Source:Wikimedia/Gage Skidmore)

The first in a round of polls to find the Republican Presidential nomination kicks-off in Iowa today. RTCC examines the candidates’ track records on climate change.

There are few surprises in the stances of the seven remaining candidates. All but one rejects scientific consensus. Several have changed their positions in recent years while some have consistently described climate change as “absurd” and “a hoax”.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, himself once thought to be a contender for the 2012 Republican nomination, described the anti-science position of the candidates as “mind-boggling”.

Whoever eventually runs against President Obama is likely to be on a collision course with the current administration.

Mitt Romney

In June 2011, Romney (who was leading the polls at the time of print) broke ranks with his fellow contenders by stating that he believed the world was getting warmer and that humans had made a contribution to that warming.

“I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming,” he said.

In October 2011, he made his famous “flip-flop” on the issue.

“My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet” he said. “By the way, they do not call it America warming, they call it global warming. So the idea of America spending massive amounts, trillions of dollars to somehow stop global warming is not a great idea.”

Romney also says he would target energy security independent of the “oil cartels” by “developing our oil, our gas, our coal, our nuclear power”.

He has also publicly dismissed cap and trade systems.

RTCC Verdict: 3/5 Current position doesn’t go far enough but has shown more awareness then his rivals in the past.

Newt Gingrich

Gingrich also appears to have reversed his views on climate change. Most recently, it was revealed that he had pulled a chapter on the subject from his book.

The author of this chapter, Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech said in an interview prior to the decision: “It is primarily laypeople, such as talk-show hosts, or those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, who are perpetuating the idea that there is no scientific consensus.”

After right wing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, picked up on the quote and described her as “one of Newt’s experts”, the chapter was dropped. The author, who says she spent 100 unpaid hours on the chapter, was unaware it had been scrapped until asked about it by journalists.

She later tweeted: “Nice to hear that Gingrich is tossing my climate chapter in the trash. 100+ unpaid hrs I cd’ve spent playing w my baby [sic]”

In 2008, Gingrinch and then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi filmed a climate action campaign ad together. Gingrich has described it as the “dumbest thing I’ve done in the last four years”.

RTCC Verdict: 3/5 Clearly pandering to voters and media. May return to previous stance if elected.

Rick Santorum

The former-lawyer has at least been consistent with his climate change policy.

He describes climate change as a “liberal conspiracy” to develop “more government control of your life” and says he has always rejected the “junk science” behind it.

Giving his view on climate science to Rush Limbaugh he said: “I believe the earth gets warmer and I also believe the earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the manmade part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd.”

Santorum, who backs the intelligent design theory over evolution, has been gaining traction with evangelical voters in the build-up to the first vote in Iowa.

RTCC Verdict: 0/5 Dangerously inaccurate and misinformed. Fiercely anti-science and disinterested in evidence, which is strange for a lawyer.

Rick Perry

Perry’s star has fallen as the campaign has developed. He was arguably the most outspoken of the pack in the early days and climate change was a topic the Texas governor returned to again and again.

He has accused researchers of manipulating data to get funding and claimed that scientists were “questioning the idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change” on a daily basis.

This is likely a reference to a petition said to include more than 30,000 scientists questioning the veracity of climate data. The campaign does not check that signees have any scientific credentials instead asking for participants to tick a box to confirm that they are indeed qualified experts.

RTCC Verdict: 1/5 Less articulate with his scepticism than Santorum. History of meddling in environmental reports in Texas.

Ron Paul

Libertarian Ron Paul has built his 2012 campaign on honesty and consistency. He has however been lacking the latter on his global warming position.

In 2008 he said he looked at climate change “objectively” and believed that human activity was affecting the climate to an extent.

But in 2009 he described “global warming terrorism” as a hoax.

He has said his energy policy would be opposed to fossil fuel subsidies and that the country would not go to war over its oil interests under his charge. He is against the cap and trade system.

RTCC Verdict: 2/5 His energy policy is encouraging but jumped on “climategate” bandwagon with fervour.

Jon Huntsman

Huntsman has much in common with front-runner Romney. Both are Mormons and both have successful business and political careers under their belts. Huntsman, however, differs from all the other candidates in one key way, he is pro-science.

“To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy. The minute that the Republican Party becomes the anti-science party – we have a huge problem,” he said.

The latest polling data has Huntsman rock bottom of the seven candidates on 1%.

RTCC Verdict: 5/5 Pro-science and publicly acknowledges human-induced climate change.

Michele Bachmann

The Tea Party-backed Minnesota congresswoman has described climate science as “manufactured”. Like Perry she gained notoriety early in the campaign but has seen her support wane in recent months.

She told the House of Representatives in 2009 that carbon dioxide cannot be harmful because it occurs in nature.

“Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is part of Earth’s life cycle…And yet we’re being told that we have to reduce this natural substance and reduce the American standard of living to create an arbitrary reduction in something that is naturally occurring in the earth.”

RTCC Verdict: 0/5 Elementary understanding of the topic lacking. Not interested in facts. Top marks for consistency though.

The post US Election 2012: Republican Presidential candidates on climate change appeared first on Climate Home News.