Via Docuticker.

Report Estimates Climate Change Adaptation Costs, Impacts to Utilities
Source: National Association of Clean Water Agencies

The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) and the Association of the Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) released a report today detailing the impacts climate change can have on wastewater and drinking water utilities and estimating the adaptation costs for these critical facilities to be between $448 billion and $944 billion through 2050. The associations, which represent the nation’s public wastewater and drinking water agencies, urged Congress and the Obama administration to recognize that climate change is fundamentally about water and to implement policies that will help utilities take timely actions to adapt.
…
Climate change impacts to wastewater and drinking water utilities, which provide critical economic, public health, and environmental benefits, include sea level rise and extreme flooding that can inundate and incapacitate treatment facilities; water quality degradation and increased treatment requirements; water scarcity and the need to develop new drinking water supplies; and lower flows in drought conditions that can affect the operation of treatment facilities.

Adaptation strategies involve integrating aspects of the constructed and natural water cycle through “water portfolio management” that provides utilities flexibility to craft sustainable approaches to suit their specific needs. Water conservation, new water conveyance and storage, desalination, and wastewater reuse are options to help utilities adapt. In addition, green infrastructure solutions that mimic the natural environment can be used to address stormwater flows at a lower cost while providing the ancillary benefits of providing habitat, recharging aquifers, and enhancing water quality.

+ Full Report (PDF; 2.6 MB)

Via RFF Library Blog.

Via RFF Library Blog.

Via RFF Library Blog.

Brookings Institution / by Craig Pirrong
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/09_cap_and_trade_market_oversight_pirrong.aspx

[From introduction] The original concept of cap-and-trade envisioned that the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions would be capped and rights to emit would be traded. But it is inevitable that there will be demand to trade instruments other than emissions rights themselves. Specifically, there will be a demand to trade derivatives on emissions rights…

the current regulatory environment is extraordinarily hostile to derivatives generally, and to carbon derivatives particularly. Indeed, several proposals have been introduced to constrain or eliminate various types of derivatives trading, including proposals to:

• Impose limits (e.g., speculative limits) on the uses of these products, or on the amount of trading certain kinds of entities can undertake;
• Restrict where and how derivatives are traded, with a decided preference for trading on organized exchanges;
• Constrain arrangements for the allocation of performance risk, with a decided preference for “clearing” derivatives transactions through central counterparties (“CCPs”);
• Ban certain derivatives altogether.

The American Clean Energy and Securities Act (ACESA), passed by the US House of Representatives in June, includes provisions mandating many of these restrictions.

All of these proposals are misguided, some extremely so. They are predicated on a widespread misunderstanding of what derivatives are, how they work, and the reasons that firms trade them…In this chapter I will support them by going back to basics, describing what derivatives are, why they are used, how they are traded, the abuses they are subject to, and the most efficient ways to constrain those abuses.

Via RFF Library Blog.

Congressional Budget Office / Testimony before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U. S. Senate : Statement of  Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10561

[From Director's Blog] Today I testified about the economic effects of legislation aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, drawing on a report that CBO released a few weeks ago.

Reducing the extent of climate change would entail substantial reductions in U.S. emissions and in emissions from other countries over the coming decades. Achieving such reductions in this country would probably involve some combination of three broad changes: transforming the U.S. economy from one that runs on carbon-dioxide-emitting fossil fuels to one that increasingly relies on nuclear and renewable fuels; accomplishing substantial improvements in energy efficiency; and implementing the large-scale capture and storage of carbon dioxide emissions.

My testimony emphasized several points:

• The economic impact would depend importantly on the design of the policy. Decisions about whether to reduce greenhouse gases primarily through market-based systems (such as taxes or a cap-and-trade program) or primarily through traditional regulatory approaches that specify performance or technology standards would influence the total costs of reducing emissions and the distribution of those costs. The costs would also depend on the stringency of the policy; whether other countries imposed similar policies; the amount of flexibility about when, where, and how emissions would be reduced; and the allocation of allowances if a cap-and-trade system was used.
• Reducing the risk of climate change would come at some cost to the economy. For example, CBO concludes that the cap-and-trade provisions of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, would reduce GDP below what it would otherwise have been—by roughly ¼ to ¾ percent in 2020 and by between 1 and 3½ percent in 2050. By way of comparison, CBO projects that real (that is, inflation-adjusted) GDP will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today, so those changes would be comparatively modest. In the models that CBO reviewed, the long-run cost to households would be smaller than the changes in GDP because consumption falls by less than GDP and because households benefit from more time spent in nonmarket activities. Moreover, these measures of potential costs do not include any benefits of averting climate change.
• Climate legislation would cause permanent shifts in production and employment away from industries that produce carbon-based energy and energy-intensive goods and services and toward industries that produce alternative energy sources and less-energy-intensive goods and services. While those shifts were occurring, total employment would probably be reduced a little compared with what it would have been without such a policy, because labor markets would most likely not adjust as quickly as would the composition of demand for different outputs.
• CBO has estimated the loss in purchasing power that would result from the primary cap-and-trade program in H.R. 2454, incorporating both the higher prices that households would face and the compensation they would receive (primarily through the allocation of allowances or the proceeds from their sale). CBO’s measure omits some channels of influence on households’ well-being that cannot be readily quantified, and it appears that the measure probably understates the true burden to a small degree. As estimated, the loss in purchasing power would be modest and would rise over time as the cap became more stringent, accounting for 0.2 percent of after-tax income in 2020 and 1.2 percent in 2050. Households in the lowest fifth of households when arrayed by income would see gains in purchasing power in both 2020 and 2050, because the compensation they would receive would exceed the costs they would bear. However, households in the middle fifth would see net losses in purchasing power amounting to 0.6 percent of after-tax income in 2020 and 1.1 percent in 2050.

Via Docuticker.

Global Climate Change Policy Tracker: An Investor’s Assessment
Source: DB Climate Change Advisors (Deutsche Bank Group) and Columbia Climate Center at the Earth Institute, Columbia University

This report, “Global Climate Change Policy Tracker: An Investor’s Assessment” (Climate Tracker), provides investors with an analysis of climate change policies and assigns a risk rating to 109 countries, states and regions based on key government mandates and supporting policy frameworks. The report was produced by DBCCA, working with the Columbia Climate Center at the Earth Institute, Columbia University.

The “Climate Tracker” is the first publicly-available analysis of its kind. It incorporates results of a model prepared by Columbia Climate Center researchers that estimates the impacts on carbon emissions of each of 270 major climate policies, and aggregates them at country, regional and global levels. The “Climate Tracker” provides a risk rating of countries and regions based on their relative attractiveness to investors. It is designed to help investors identify the best risk-adjusted returns in climate change investment opportunities around the world.

+ Executive Summary [PDF; 382 KB]
+ Detailed Summary of Targets by Region & Country [PDF; 474 KB]
+ Detailed Analysis of Targets by Region & Country [PDF; 1.74 MB]

Via Docuticker.

Health Problems Heat Up: Climate Change and the Public’s Health
Source: Trust for America’s Health

Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) released a new report today that finds only five states have published a strategic climate change plan that includes a public health response. This includes planning for health challenges and emergencies expected to develop from natural disasters, pollution, and infectious diseases as temperatures and sea levels rise.

The Health Problems Heat Up: Climate Change and the Public’s Health report examines U.S. planning for changing health threats posed by climate change, such as heat-related sickness, respiratory infections, natural disasters, changes to the food supply, and infectious diseases carried by insects.

+ Full Report

Via Docuticker.

Exposed: Groundbreaking report details climate change hotspots in US Southeast
Source: Oxfam America

A number of “hotspots” of vulnerability to climate-related hazards exist in the US southeast, according to a new groundbreaking study released today by Oxfam America. The report, Exposed: Social Vulnerability and Climate Change in the US Southeast, is the first of its kind to combine hazards associated with climate change with social variables, revealing the people and places that will most likely to be hit worst by climate change.

“Climate change will impact everyone, but not everyone will be impacted equally,” said Oxfam America President Raymond C. Offenheiser. “Social factors like income and race do not determine who will be hit by a natural disaster, but they do determine a population’s ability to prepare, respond, and recover when disaster does strike. This report will serve as a critical tool to help us identify especially vulnerable communities and invest wisely in their climate resiliency and preparedness.”

The study covers 13 states in the US southeast from Arkansas to Virginia, measuring the underlying social and demographic characteristics of populations and how some of those characteristics negatively affect their ability to cope with climate change-related hazards, such as flooding, drought, hurricane force winds and sea-level rise. Poverty is deepest in the rural South where more than one in four people live in counties with persistent poverty, and it is therefore one of the country’s most socially vulnerable regions to climate change.

+ Full Report

Read the full story at Ars Technica.

A collection of scientific societies has sent an open letter to all US Senators, reiterating their individual statements on climate change, and offering to provide more information as legislation to limit carbon emissions moves forward.

Read the full story at Ars Technica.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is telling the US Chamber of Commerce to get over a parody site that turns the trade group’s opposition to greenhouse gas legislation on its head. It might make the chamber look foolish, but the site is described as classic “fair use.”

Via Docuticker.

Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming
Source: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem – 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.

Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

The decline in the belief in solid evidence of global warming has come across the political spectrum, but has been particularly pronounced among independents. Just 53% of independents now see solid evidence of global warming, compared with 75% who did so in April 2008. Republicans, who already were highly skeptical of the evidence of global warming, have become even more so: just 35% of Republicans now see solid evidence of rising global temperatures, down from 49% in 2008 and 62% in 2007. Fewer Democrats also express this view – 75% today compared with 83% last year.

Via Docuticker.

Strengthening U.S. International Energy Assistance to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Energy Security
Source: RAND Corporation

This study provides information on U.S. international energy-assistance programs, a potentially important tool for addressing the challenges of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and increasing U.S. energy security. International energy assistance may provide a low-cost, effective opportunity to reduce future growth in greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption before current development patterns become increasingly locked in throughout the developing world. The report reviews U.S. government energy-assistance trends and strategies, along with similar data for Germany, which has a different, highly coordinated approach to planning and implementing energy assistance. Recent studies that address U.S. energy and climate policy are also reviewed to gain insights that can inform efforts to improve U.S. energy assistance. Recommendations for further investigation include assessing the effectiveness of U.S. and other approaches to providing energy assistance to determine the reasons for any differences in effectiveness; comparing the longer-term benefits of supporting energy-sector policy reform with the shorter-term benefits of supporting more-specific technical assistance or investment projects; and assessing the advantages and disadvantages of focusing more U.S. energy assistance on fewer recipients.

Via Docuticker.

What Happened to the Seasons?
Source: Oxfam, UK

The timing of rain, and intra-seasonal rainfall patterns are critical to smallholder farmers in developing countries. Seasonality influences farmers’ decisions about when to cultivate and sow and harvest. It ultimately contributes to the success or failure of their crops. Worryingly, therefore, farmers are reporting that both the timing of rainy seasons and the pattern of rains within seasons are changing. These perceptions of change are striking in that they are geographically widespread and because the changes are described in remarkably consistent terms. In this paper, we relate the perceptions of farmers from several regions (East Asia, South Asia, Southern and East Africa, and Latin America) of how seasons are changing, and in some cases, how once distinct seasons appear to be disappearing altogether, and the impacts that these changes are having. We then go on to ask two critical questions. Firstly, do meteorological observations support farmers’ perceptions of changing seasonality? Secondly, to what extent are these changes consistent with predictions from climate models? We conclude that changing seasonality may be one of the major impacts of climate change faced by smallholder farmers in developing countries over the next few decades. Indeed, this may already be the case. Yet it is relatively unexplored in the literature. We also suggest some of the key adaptation responses that might help farmers cope with these changes.

+ Direct link to document (PDF; 221 KB)

Read the full story in Scientific American.

A new analysis creates a better look at rising temperatures.

Read the full paper from the World Bank.

Climate change is anthropogenic – the product of billions of acts of daily consumption. That solutions need to be anthropogenic too is well accepted. Yet, suggested solutions are normally cast in the realms of finance and technology, often neglecting the primal root of the problem: individual behavior. An emerging body of social-psychology scholarship has examined the barriers and drivers of individual behavior in relation to both adaptation and mitigation. This paper reviews some of its conclusions, and suggests policy areas that should be considered in devising appropriate interventions.

Read the full paper from the Brookings Institution.

A cap-and-trade system to control U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as proposed in recent draft legislation, for example in H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA), creates a limited and declining number of emissions allowances each year (the “cap”). Each allowance is worth one ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases. The program requires firms with emissions that fall under the cap (the “covered entities”) to surrender to the government enough allowances to cover their emissions. The cap declines each year in order to satisfy long-run emissions targets. For example, ACESA sets U.S. emissions goals for 2020 and 2050 that are 17 percent and 83 percent, respectively, below 2005 levels. To achieve the capped levels at least cost, the program allows firms to buy and sell allowances (the “trade” part of cap-and-trade), creating a market that induces the least-cost emissions abatement. The allowance market thus creates a transparent price for the right to emit greenhouse gases.

Policymakers are keenly interested in the likely effect of the cap-and-trade system on their constituents. This paper summarizes the economic literature on the “incidence” (a.k.a. the “distributional effects”) of cap-and-trade climate policy, meaning all the ways people may be made better or worse off as a result of the policy.

One often hears about how a particular climate policy approach might benefit corporations as opposed to individuals or vice versa. This paper takes the perspective of the economic literature, which examines the effects of climate policy on individuals and different categories thereof, not the effects on individuals vis-à-vis corporations. Only people can bear the costs and benefits of the program. Although the legal system treats firms as if they were people, the ultimate economic burdens and benefits of climate policy fall not on legal entities but on the owners of firms (shareholders), workers, consumers, and other individuals.

This paper considers the distributional effects of cap-and-trade across different sets of people, including consumers, shareholders, household income groups, and geographic regions, and it explores the role of policy design in determining those effects. The paper describes how the incidence of the program depends on how market forces transmit the costs of emissions abatement through the economy and how the program can create large transfers from one group to another, especially through the way the government doles out allowances. Finally, it explains how the allocation of allowances can lower or raise the overall costs to the economy by reducing other economic distortions or by inducing higher-cost abatement.

Section 2 of this paper reviews existing studies of the incidence of a cap-and-trade system and explains how and when market forces transmit the price on carbon from covered entities to consumers. Section 3 explains how the ultimate economic incidence of the program depends critically on how the government distributes the value of the allowances, either in the form of the allowances themselves or via the proceeds of allowance sales. Section 4 explores how the way in which the government devolves allowances can affect not only the distribution of costs but also the overall level of the costs to the U.S. economy. It also examines other potential uses of the value of allowances, such as enhanced energy research and development funding. Section 5 concludes.

Read the full paper from the Brookings Institution.

The potential range of affected sectors and the scale of impacts on domestic industries that would result from economy-wide climate legislation are unprecedented in the history of U.S. environmental regulation. Even a cursory consideration of how the balance sheets of American companies would be impacted by a price on their greenhouse gas emissions reveals the complexity of designing evenhanded domestic climate policies.

Pricing carbon emissions, either through a cap-and-trade system or an emissions tax, will not only adversely affect electricity and primary energy producers, but it will also hurt the competitive performance of heavy fossil-fuel users in downstream industries, especially in trade-exposed sectors such as steel and chemicals.

This gives rise to two overarching concerns. First, a small but prominent subset of domestic companies may be disproportionately burdened if carbon mitigation policies affect their operations but not those of their international competitors. Second, some of the environmental benefits might be eroded if increases in U.S. manufacturing costs from uneven international carbon pricing caused economic activity to shift to nations with weaker greenhouse gas mitigation policies or none at all.

This paper reviews the evidence on the competitiveness burdens imposed on domestic energy-consuming industries as a result of a unilateral or near-unilateral carbon pricing policy. We also examine the nature and magnitude of emissions leakage that could undermine the environmental effectiveness of such a policy. Subsequently, we analyze a range of options designed to address these concerns, with particular emphasis on the measures included in the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA). Overall, we find that this bill adopts a quite reasonable approach to the multiple challenges involved, although we do identify a number of possible refinements that might be considered as parallel legislation is discussed in the Senate.

Read the full story from the Associated Press.

Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.

Only one problem: It’s not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

The case that the Earth might be cooling partly stems from recent weather. Last year was cooler than previous years. It’s been a while since the super-hot years of 1998 and 2005. So is this a longer climate trend or just weather’s normal ups and downs?

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

Read the full post at Green Car Congress.

Melting glaciers in the Alps may cause severe environmental damage due to the release of pollutants which have been frozen in ice for decades, according to research by Swiss scientists. With glaciers predicted to recede further due to global warming, the resulting melt may contain chemicals which have been banned or are not widely produced any more.

Read the full post at Green Car Congress.

Thirteen scientists and land use experts conclude in a new paper that an important but fixable error in legal accounting rules used to measure compliance with carbon limits for bioenergy could undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging deforestation. Their paper is published in the 23 Oct. issue of the journal Science.

A separate paper published online in Science Express by researchers from the Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole and MIT concludes that indirect land use change associated with global biofuels programs will be responsible for substantially more carbon loss (up to twice as much) than direct land use. Their model also predicts that because of predicted increases in fertilizer use, nitrous oxide emissions will be more important than carbon losses themselves in terms of warming potential.

Read the full post at Green Car Congress.

An analysis of sediment cores from an Arctic lake indicates that biological and chemical changes occurring there are unprecedented over the past 200,000 years and likely are the result of human-caused climate change, according to a new study led by the University of Colorado at Boulder. A paper on the work was published online 19 October in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Read the full post at Green Car Congress.

There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising—from 71% in 2008 to 57% in 2009. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem—35% today, down from 44% in April 2008, according to the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted 30 Sept. to 4 Oct.

Read the full story in the New York Times.

New labels listing the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of foods are appearing on some grocery items and restaurant menus around the country.

Confused about the Climate Bill? Check out the following reports from the Congressional Research Service on the relative impacts of the options being discussed.

Leggett, Jane A. (2009). Climate Change: Current Issues and Policy Tools (March 6, 2009). Washington, DC : Congressional Research Service (Online at http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34513_20090306.pdf)
Abstract: On June 2, 2008, the Senate agreed to consider a bill (S. 3036) to control greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In the 111th Congress, leadership in both chambers have announced their intentions to pass bills in 2009 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These actions are indicative of the pressures Members of Congress increasingly face on whether and how to address human-induced climate change. Contentious debates scrutinize issues of science, economics, values, geopolitics and a host of other concerns. Deliberations also weigh the appropriateness of alternative policy tools and program designs. The economic stakes are potentially largewith both the costs of controls and the costs of inaction ranging, by some estimates, into trillions of dollars over several decades. A major international assessment released in 2007 concluded that the Earths climate had warmed unequivocally over the past century, and that elevated levels of so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) were likely responsible for a major portion of the observed warming. Elevated concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere are due mostly to human activities, especially emissions from use of fossil fuels, clearing of land, and some industrial processes. Continued population and economic growth, with dependence on fossil fuels and needs for expanding agricultural lands, are expected to drive GHG emissions and induced climate change over the 21st Century to levels never experienced by human civilizations. While benefits may accrue to some people who may experience a limited amount of climate change, the aggregate effects are expected to become increasingly adverse, with people living in dry regions or along low-lying coasts, and people with low incomes, expected to be especially vulnerable. Adaptations can moderate the impacts and expand opportunities, but at a cost. Besides the overall costs of climate change, key concerns include the distributional effects within and across generations, how to value ecological impacts, and the potential for abrupt and irreversible changes. While important uncertainties remain concerning future climate change and its impacts, many experts are convinced that the evidence calls for U.S. action to abate GHG emissions. Others argue that mandatory controls would be premature, unnecessary or too costly. For decision-makers considering actions to address climate change, an assortment of policy instruments is available; studies suggest that a combination could be most effective in achieving various climate policy objectives. Current policy attention has focused on cap and trade strategies to reduce GHG emissions, with additional policy tools aimed at promoting the technology development considered necessary to slow climate change significantly. In parallel, growing attention is being given to supporting adaptations to expected future changes, as well as to strategies to gain effective international engagement in reducing GHG. One significant obstacle to consensus is concern about the potential costs of abating GHG emissions, since deep reductions would require extraordinary changes in energy use and technologies. Studies suggest that efficiently designed programs could moderate the costs of reducing GHG emissions; technically and politically, though, an efficiently designed program may not be realistic. Policy options can ease the adjustments required and modify the distribution of costsor potential wealth embodied in distribution of emission allowancesacross specific sectors or populations. A core challenge of policy design, then, is balancing the climate effectiveness of a policy, the economic costs, and its distributional effects.

Parker, Larry and John Blodgett (2008). Global Climate Change: Three Policy Perspectives (November 26, 2008). Washington, DC : Congressional Research Service. (Online at http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/98-738_20081126.pdf)
Abstract: The 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change requires that signatories, including the United States, establish policies for constraining future emission levels of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2). The George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush Administrations each drafted action plans in response to requirements of the convention. These plans have raised significant controversy and debate. This debate intensified following the 1997 Kyoto Agreement, which, had it been ratified by the United States, would have committed the United States to reduce greenhouse gases by 7% over a five-year period (2008-2012) from specified baseline years. Controversy is inherent, in part, because of uncertainties about the likelihood and magnitude of possible future climate change, the consequences for human well being, and the costs and benefits of minimizing or adapting to possible climate change. Controversy also is driven by differences in how competing policy communities view the assumptions underlying approaches to this complex issue. This paper examines three starting points from which a U.S. response to the convention is being framed. These starting points, or policy “lenses,” lead to divergent perceptions of the issue with respect to uncertainty, urgency, costs, and government roles. They also imply differing but overlapping processes and actions for possible implementation, thus shaping recommendations of policy advocates concerning the federal government’s role in reducing greenhouse gases. A technological lens views environmental problems as the result of inappropriate or misused technologies. The solutions to the problems lie in improving or correcting technology. The implied governmental role would be to provide leadership and incentives for technological development. An economic lens views environmental problems as the result of inappropriate or misleading market signals (prices). The solutions to the problems lie in ensuring that the prices of goods and services reflect their total costs, including environmental damages. The implied governmental role would be to improve the functions of the market to include environmental costs, so the private sector can respond efficiently. An ecological lens views environmental problems as the result of indifference to or disregard for the planet’s ecosystem on which all life depends. The solutions to the problems lie in developing an understanding of and a respect for that ecosystem, and providing people with mechanisms to express that understanding in their daily choices. The implied governmental role would be to support ecologically based education and values, as well as to promote “green” products and processes, for example through procurement policies, efficiency standards, and regulations. Some initiatives are underway; all the perspectives are relevant in evaluating them and possible further policies. The purpose here is not to suggest that one lens is “better” than another, but rather to articulate the implications of the differing perspectives in order to clarify terms of debate among diverse policy communities.

Parker, Larry and Brent D. Yaccobucci (2009). Climate Change: Costs and Benefits of the Cap-and-Trade Provisions of H.R. 2454 (September 14, 2009). Washington, DC : Congressional Research Service. (Online at http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40809_20090914.pdf)
Abstract: This report examines seven studies that project the costs of H.R. 2454 to 2030 or beyond. It is difficult (and some would consider it unwise) to project costs up to the year 2030, much less beyond. The already tenuous assumption that current regulatory standards will remain constant becomes more unrealistic as time goes forward, and other unforeseen events (such as technological breakthroughs) loom as critical issues which cannot be modeled. Hence, long-term cost projections are at best speculative, and should be viewed with attentive skepticism. The finer and more detailed the estimate presented, the greater the skepticism should be. In the words of the late Dr. Lincoln Moses, the first Administrator of the Energy Information Administration: “There are no facts about the future.” But if models cannot reliably predict the future, they can indicate the sensitivity of a program’s provisions to varying economic, technological, and behavioral assumptions that may assist policymakers in designing a greenhouse gas reduction strategy. The various cases examined here do provide some important insights on the costs and benefits of H.R. 2454 and its many provisions. • If enacted, the ultimate cost of H.R. 2454 would be determined by the response of the economy to the technological challenges presented by the bill. • The allocation of allowance value under H.R. 2454 will determine who ultimately bears the cost of the program. • The cases generally indicate that the availability of offsets (particularly international offsets) is potentially the key factor in determining the cost of H.R. 2454. • The interplay between nuclear power, renewables, natural gas, and coal-fired capacity with carbon capture and storage technology among the cases emphasizes the need for a low-carbon source of electric generating capacity in the mid- to long-term. A considerable amount of low-carbon generation will have to be built under H.R. 2454 in order to meet the emission reduction requirement. • Attempts to estimate household effects (or other fine-grained analyses) are fraught with numerous difficulties that reflect more on the philosophies and assumptions of the cases reviewed than on any credible future effect. Finally, H.R. 2454’s climate-related environmental benefit should be considered in a global context and the desire to engage the developing world in the reduction effort. When the United States and other developed countries ratified the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), they agreed both to reduce their own emissions to help stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gases. This global scope raises two issues for H.R. 2454: (1) whether the bill’s greenhouse gas reduction program and other provisions would be considered sufficiently credible by developing countries so that schemes for including them in future international agreements become more likely, and (2) whether the bill’s reductions meet U.S. commitments to stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations under the UNFCCC, and whether those reductions occur in a timely fashion so that global concentrations are stabilized at an acceptable level

Ramseur, Jonathan L., Larry Parker, and Brent D. Yaccobucci (2009). Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Control: Selected Proposals in the 111th Congress (May 27, 2009). Washington, DC : Congressional Research Service. (Online at http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40556_20090527.pdf)
Abstract: As of the date of this report, Members in the 111th Congress have introduced seven stand-alone proposals that would control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The proposals offered to date would employ market-based approaches—either a cap-and-trade or carbon tax system, or some combination thereof—to reduce GHG emissions. The legislative proposals are varied in their overall approaches in controlling GHG emissions. Some control emissions by setting a quantity (or cap); others control emissions by setting a price (or tax/fee). In addition, the proposals differ in their inclusion of particular design elements, such as whether or not to allow offsets (emission reduction opportunities from economic sectors not directly addressed by the primary approach). H.R. 2454 (Waxman/Markey) has been the primary energy and climate change legislative proposal in the 111th Congress. It was introduced May 15, 2009, and subsequently modified and offered as a “Manager’s Amendment” (May 18, 2009) for markup in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. After making several amendments to the bill (most relating to the bill’s energy provisions), the committee ordered the bill reported May 21, 2009. H.R. 2454 (Waxman/Markey) and H.R. 1862 (Van Hollen) would establish cap-and-trade programs, but they would differ in their implementation. For example, the latter would not allow offsets to be used for compliance purposes, while the former would allow covered entities to satisfy an increasing percentage (approximately 30% in 2012) of their compliance obligation with offsets. H.R. 1666 (Doggett) would also create a cap-and-trade system, but in the early years of the program, the number of emission allowances distributed would be based on achieving a specified allowance price. Three of the proposals—H.R. 594 (Stark), H.R. 1337 (Larson), and H.R. 2380 (Inglis)—would use a carbon tax approach to address carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion. H.R. 1683 (McDermott) would establish a program that may be described as a dynamic carbon tax: its tax rate would be linked with annual emission allocations (or caps). A key element in GHG emission reduction bills is how, to whom, and for what purpose the value of emission allowances or carbon tax revenue would be distributed. The distribution strategy is a critical policy decision, because it would affect (1) the overall cost of the program and (2) how program costs are distributed throughout the economy. In the early years of the program, H.R. 2454 would distribute allowances at no cost to both covered and non-covered entities to support various policy objectives. In addition, an increasing percentage (approximately 18% in 2016) of the allowances would be sold through auction. As with the distribution of no-cost allowances, auction revenues would be used to further various policy objectives.

Competition runs from October 13 to December 8
DoSomething.org is calling on students to green their schools. Students who make the biggest effort to reduce their school’s carbon footprint could win up to $1,500 to further their efforts. Schools are eligible for a first-place prize of a $1,500 grant and a banner, a plaque, an eco-friendly gift bag and a chance to be visited by the biotour bus. Three $500 second place prizes will also be awarded. The competition opens October 13 and closes December 8.
http://www.dosomething.org/increase_your_green

The Geological Society of America is inviting the public to monitor gravestones to gain data on air pollution and climate change since the Industrial Revolution. Because white marble gravestones bear dates and are highly susceptible to erosion, the stones can help scientists infer a region’s climate and pollution history.
http://www.goearthtrek.org/Gravestones/Gravestones.html

The Will Steger Foundation developed Citizen Climate, a new high school curriculum tied to national standards that focuses on global climate solutions. This curriculum emphasizes civic engagement and helps teachers and students understand the critical and complex climate solutions being discussed on the national and international stage. It also allows students to formulate statements about what they would like to see happen in climate policy and how these policies and actions can be replicated in their states and local communities.
http://www.willstegerfoundation.org/

Read the full story in the Los Angeles Times.

Warmer temperatures may spur tree growth in some regions of the Pacific Northwest, which could mean reduced carbon in the air, researchers say.

ICLEI Small Communities Toolkit

Large cities grab a lot of attention for their green goals and initiatives. But smaller communities–defined here as having a population of 25,000 people or less–across the United States are eager to commit to climate, energy, and sustainability actions as well–and collectively, they can have an enormous impact.

Yet due to various limitations, many smaller local governments struggle with initiating and maintaining momentum on climate protection. These limitations may include part-time or volunteer elected officials, small budgets, and minimal municipal control. ICLEI’s toolkit is designed to help them overcome these limitations through detailed resources, case studies, and guidance.

The toolkit also helps smaller communities understand how to take advantage of their significant opportunities. For example, in a small, close-knit community, a local government can more easily influence community members to make individual changes to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. With this toolkit in hand, small communities can become empowered to reach their goals.

Read the full story at Green, Inc.

The United States Chamber of Commerce, under fire for its vocal opposition to climate change regulation, says that the vast majority of its members support its position.

Read the full post at Green, Inc.

The European Commission this week introduced an open-access online tool to monitor the development of about a dozen low-carbon technologies in the trade bloc.

The commission said itsStrategic Energy Technology Plan Information System, offered ways for citizens, researchers, investors and policy makers to map funding for projects in areas including hydropower, wind, photovoltaics, concentrating solar power, wave, geothermal, bioenergy, carbon capture and storage, smart grids, nuclear fission and fusion, hydrogen and fuel cells.

Via Docuticker.

Climate Change Poses Grave Threat to U.S. National Parks
Source: National Resources Defense Council

Climate change from human activity is the leading threat to wildlife, plants, water and ice in 25 of America’s national parks, according to a new report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Rocky Mountain Climate Organization (RMCO).

The report, National Parks in Peril, comes on the heels of the introduction of clean energy and climate legislation in the U.S. Senate, as well as Ken Burns’ national parks series on PBS, which has put parks in the center of America’s national conscience.
…
The report outlines climate-related threats in 25 parks spanning 22 states. The top risks include: loss of snow and water, rising seas, more extreme weather, loss of plants and wildlife, and more pollution.

+ National Parks in Peril

Read/listen to the full story at NPR.

The Indian government is resisting global pressure to cut carbon emissions to combat climate change. But in India’s rural areas, such as one village in Gujarat state, remedies ranging from individual solar-powered stoves and a 30-foot-high windmill are already being explored.

Read the full story at ClimateBiz.

A draft of the Boxer-Kerry senate version of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill was leaked to the media this week. I have previously posted about the proposed National Energy Efficiency Code in the Waxman-Markey bill and in the first proposed senate bill ACELA.

Both of those proposed Energy Efficiency Codes had specific energy efficiency targets, timelines, adoption and implementation plans, and enforcement, though they differed somewhat in the specifics. Not so the Boxer-Kerry Bill. What had been pages of turgid regulatory prose in the prior two bills has been condensed to a mere page and a half — Section 174, starting on page 113 of the draft bill for those of you following at home.

The most interesting part is that all specifics have disappeared. No mandated energy efficiency savings, no specifics for implementation timeline, no enforcement, nothing. Just a mandate that the Department of Energy or “other agency head or heads as may be designated by the President”

Via Docuticker.

Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2009
Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), to which PwC has been appointed global advisor and report writer, and now in its seventh year, aims to provide investors with a unique analysis of how the worlds largest companies are responding to climate change.

In 2009, CDP received the highest response rate to date, the highest level of disclosed emissions and greater detail than ever before on the activities being undertaken by the largest corporations around climate change mitigation and adaptation. Since the first CDP report in 2003, the quantity and quality of data disclosed has advanced significantly. In parallel, CDP data is increasingly being applied as a catalyst for changing business behaviour and is becoming more integrated into mainstream financial analysis.

This year, CDP (backed by 475 institutional investors representing more than US$55 trillion of funds under management) sent questionnaires to more than 3,700 of the world’s largest corporations requesting information on greenhouse gas emissions, the potential risks and opportunities related to climate change and strategies for managing those risks and opportunities.

+ Global 500
+ S&P 500
+ FTSE 350
+ Specific industry sectors

Read the full story at GreenBiz.

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has launched a new online portal for companies looking for help in developing energy efficiency strategies.

The Corporate Energy Efficiency website is part of a larger Pew Center project focused on sharing corporate energy efficiency best practices related to internal operations, supply chains, products and services.

Read the full story from Mother Nature Network.

Last week Google launched a first — a method to visualize the projected impacts of climate change on series of Google Earth layers. Climate Change on Google Earth currently provides two data layers — temperature and rainfall. But the program will roll out subsequent layers including sea level rise, water shortages, and polar ice melt.

Google Earth partnered with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Danish government, which is hosting the much-anticipated Climate talks in December, to create the application which they hope will help both global climate experts and the general public to gain a more visceral understanding of just what will happen if we do not succeed in limited our global greenhouse gas emissions.

Read/listen to the full story at NPR.

More than 20 years ago, an international treaty known as the Montreal Protocol phased out a group of chemicals that were destroying the Earth’s ozone layer.

But since then, scientists have discovered that some of the chemicals developed to replace those destructive compounds might be contributing to another problem: global warming.

These new chemicals are known as hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, and they’re used as coolants in refrigerators. HFCs have largely replaced older refrigerants, such as CFCs. These replacements are nonflammable and don’t hurt the ozone.

But when it comes to global warming, HFCs aren’t so good, says Kert Davies of Greenpeace.

“We call them the super greenhouse gases,” Davies says. “They’re the global warming threat that no one has really heard about.”

Via the RFF Library Blog.

Belfer Center, Kennedy School, Harvard University Policy Brief / by Morgan Bazilian
http://tinyurl.com/yacakdu

[Abstract] This brief considers the technology negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) within the wider context of low-carbon energy technology. In doing so, it focuses on how technology issues can be effectively embedded within a potential agreement at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen. The paper asserts that the negotiations must be conducted with cognizance of national decision-making processes and competing priorities. It puts forth a series of framing topics in order to more explicitly explore the large technology “ecosystem”. It concludes that the most appropriate area for international cooperation on technology under the UNFCCC lies in the direct provision of human and institutional capacity building with a focus on the least developed countries.

Read the full op-ed piece by Paul Krugman in the New York Times.

Saving the planet won’t come free (although the early stages of conservation actually might). But it won’t cost all that much either.

Read the full story in the New York Times.

A closer look at the case of Alan Carlin, a global warming contrarian at the E.P.A., paints a more complicated case than has been widely publicized.

Read the full post at Green Car Congress.

US Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA), Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from going ahead with regulations that would include indirect land use change (ILUC) effects in implementing the renewable fuel standard.

Via Docuticker.

CO2 Regulations and Electricity Prices: Cost Estimates from Coal-Fired Power Plants
Source: Stanford Graduate School of Business Research Papers

This study examines the changes in electricity prices that are likely to result if in the future coal-fired power plants are regulated for their CO2 emissions. We focus on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies that new power plants may adopt either because of a direct regulatory requirement or because the market price of CO2 emission permits is sufficiently high. Our analysis takes explicitly into account that in some jurisdictions the supply of electricity at the wholesale level (generation) is organized competitively, while in other jurisdictions a regulated monopolist (utility) provides both generation and distribution services. We find that for both the competitive and the regulated monopoly scenario an emission price in the range of $25-30 per tonne of CO2 would make it advantageous for coal-fired plants to adopt CCS capabilities rather than buy emission permits. The resulting increases in the retail price of electricity are projected to be near 25%. In contrast to the competitive power supply scenario, these price increases materialize only gradually, in fact almost linearly, over 30 years for the scenario of a regulated utility. This delay in price increases reflects that for regulated firms prices are principally based on historical cost rather than current cost.

+ Full Paper (PDF; 414 KB)

Read the full story in Scientific American.

President Obama’s top climate diplomat acknowledged today that Capitol Hill delays over global warming legislation will likely push international negotiations to work beyond a December summit in Copenhagen on a new treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

Read the full story in Science News.

Scientists are racing to learn as much as they can about penguins in the hopes of saving them from an uncertain future.

See also the following resources for teachers to use in the classroom:

• FOR KIDS: Penguin pressure question sheet
• FOR KIDS: Penguin pressure puzzle

Via Docuticker.

Salazar Launches DOI Climate Change Response Strategy
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today launched the Department of the Interior’s first-ever coordinated strategy to address current and future impacts of climate change on America’s land, water, ocean, fish, wildlife, and cultural resources.

“Across the country, Americans are experiencing first-hand the impacts of climate change, from growing pressure on water supplies to more intense droughts and fires to rampant bark beetle infestations,” said Salazar. “Because Interior manages one-fifth of our nation’s landmass and 1.7 billion acres on the Outer Continental Shelf, it is imperative that we tackle these impacts of a failed and outdated energy policy. This secretarial order is another milestone in our continuing effort to change how Interior does business to respond to the energy and climate challenges of our time.”

The secretarial order signed today at Interior’s command center establishes a framework through which Interior bureaus will coordinate climate change science and resource management strategies. Under the framework:

• A new Climate Change Response Council, led by the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Counselor, will coordinate DOI’s response to the impacts of climate change within and among the Interior bureaus and will work to improve the sharing and communication of climate change impact science, including through www.data.gov;
• Eight DOI regional Climate Change Response Centers, serving Alaska, the Northeast, the Southeast, the Southwest, the Midwest, the West, Northwest, and Pacific regions – will synthesize existing climate change impact data and management strategies, help resource managers put them into action on the ground, and engage the public through education initiatives; and
• A network of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives will engage DOI and federal agencies, local and state partners, and the public to craft practical, landscape-level strategies for managing climate change impacts within the eight regions. The cooperatives will focus on impacts such as the effects of climate change on wildlife migration patterns, wildfire risk, drought, or invasive species that typically extend beyond the borders of any single National Wildlife Refuge, BLM unit, or National Park.

+ U.S. Department of the Interior Climate Change Response Strategy

Via Docuticker.

Wisconsin Scientists Release Groundbreaking Climate Study
Source: Union of Concerned Scientists

A study released today by University of Wisconsin-Madison scientists focusing on the local consequences of global warming in their state represents “groundbreaking work,” according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

The study, was conducted by Dan Vimont, a UW-Madison professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and colleagues Chris Kucharik, David Lorenz and Michael Notaro.

“This study highlights the very local effects of global warming that towns, counties and states will have to address to effectively adapt to climate change,” said Peter Frumhoff, Director of Science and Policy at UCS and a lead author for the United Nations’ Nobel-Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “We need more studies like this one because much of the responsibility for adaptation ultimately will rest with individual localities.”

The University of Wisconsin-Madison study examines a scenario in which heat-trapping emissions continue to increase significantly over time, resulting in serious consequences by mid-century. UCS released a study last week contrasting the consequences of a lower-emissions and higher-emissions future for Wisconsin and other Midwestern states by the end of the century. Dramatically reducing heat-trapping emissions as quickly as possible would help the country avoid the worst consequences of climate change over the next century, Frumhoff said. Continuing on a business-as-usual path would lead to much more severe costs.

Read the full story in Scientific American.

Over the next five years at least half a million tons of carbon dioxide will be injected into rock deep underneath the Mountaineer power plant near New Haven, W.Va. Although that is less than 0.00001 percent of global emissions of the greenhouse gas and less than 2 percent of the plant’s own CO₂ output, the sequestration, which begins this week, marks the first commercial demonstration of the only available technological fix for the carbon problem of coal-fired power plants, one that many coal facilities around the world hope to emulate.

Read the press release.

Internal Treasury Department documents released this week confirm the Obama administration’s expectations for a nationwide global warming “cap and trade” plan.  The documents were obtained by CEI Senior Fellow Christopher Horner through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Read the full story in the New York Times.

Progress on a global climate treaty may be difficult at a time when temperatures have been stable for a decade.