Climate Progress is getting a 12-hour jump on the release of the new plan from the Presidential Climate Action Project (which should be available in full here Tuesday).

How ambitious should the next President be in tackling global warming? A document being issued tomorrow by a team at the University of Colorado indicates that No. 44 can be, and should be, far more aggressive than any of the candidates has promised so far.

The Presidential Climate Action Project — a two-year effort headquartered at the university — is releasing a presidential action agenda that contains more than 300 specific changes in federal policies, programs and statutes, and proposes that the chief executive act on all of them within the first 100 days of inauguration, under executive authority or by championing them in the Administration’s first legislative and budget packages to Congress.

The plan is being billed as not only the most comprehensive, but in many ways the boldest, climate action agenda yet put before the American public and the presidential candidates.

It calls for the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30% below 2010 levels by 2020 and 90% by 2050, in part through an “upstream” cap and auction program that regulates the approximately 1,500 “first providers” of fossil energy — wellheads, mine mouths, etc. That regime is simpler to administer than mid-stream and down-stream regulation and would cover 100% of the economy.

Other key proposals include:
Read more

… and he’s not that thrilled with efficient use of electricity, either. Pretty irrational, considering that he does embrace both renewable fuels and efficiency in vehicles.

The White House is prepared to veto the entire energy bill if it includes the House version of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RSP), as made clear in their absurd petty predictable annoying less-than-useful letter to Speaker Pelosi. What is the House RPS? As noted earlier,

The bill would require utilities to provide 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. The provision exempts publicly owned utilities and rural electric cooperatives. Establishes a credit trading mechanism. Up to 4 percent — or roughly a quarter — of the mandate may be fulfilled with energy efficiency measures.

Bush says that is unacceptable, notwithstanding the fact that half the states already have an RPS, many much tougher than the House’s. The White House, however, insists

Inclusion of any mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard in energy legislation would have several adverse effects. A federal RPS is unfair application, is overly prescriptive in its definition living in low-carbon technologies, and does not allow states to opt out, would hurt consumers and undercut state decisions.

But what would the impact of the House’s RPS actually be? Back in June, the Administration’s Energy Information Administration modeled an earlier, tougher version of the House RPS (no 4% for efficiency) and found

Compared with the reference case, cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from 2005 through 2030 are $7.2 billion (0.4 percent) higher, while cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are $1.0 billion (0.1 percent) lower.

Throw in energy efficiency, and I’d say the RPS will have no measurable impact on total residential (and non-residential) energy bills. But, of course, pollution would be cut sharply — 222 million metric tons in 2030. If that’s too painful for consumers, no wonder this bunch opposes any mandatory action whatsoever on greenhouse gas emissions. Sad!

Part I introduced some California programs dating back to the 1970s that are relevant to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, even though the purpose of the programs were to deal with other issues. This second part will introduce more recent programs, which are often specifically targeted at GHG emissions. Later posts will provide more detail. California legislation concerning global warming dates back twenty years: AB4420 of 1988 directed the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare and maintain an inventory of the state’s GHG emissions.

Recognizing that there no single solution, or even a small set of solutions, but that a lot of small improvements can add up to large results, California now has a broad set of initiatives, ranging from small targeted efforts to a sweeping cap. Even the cap, AB32, will end up been implemented by regulatory agencies as dozens of smaller programs. Targeted legislation includes the Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007 (AB1470) to promote solar water heating and other technologies that reduce natural gas demand. The CEC added cool roof requirements to its Title 24 building energy efficiency standards in 2005. (Cool roofs are often overlooked in the war on global warming.)

Read more

Indonesia is plagued by flooding, but today marks the official start of a different sort of flood – one of politicians, non-profit reps, and activists gathering by the thousands (15,000-20,000) as part of the thirteenth United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting.

Discussions will take place for the next two weeks, but the most important meetings tend to happen the second week. In this case, that will be day and night the week of December 10-15. And it’s not quite safe to say that negotiations will occur, as this meeting is so preliminary to negotiations that its top formal objective is merely to set a timeline.

However, the purpose of the meeting for non-governmental attendees is much more substantive. This is the first in a series to discuss the post-Kyoto arrangement, to go into force 2013. Expectations are high, although few doubt any meaningful agreements will result.

Indeed, the pressure has been growing for weeks. First, with the joint award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Then with the fourth synthesis report from the IPCC, capping a year of IPCC releases on the science, vulnerability and solutions to global warming. And finally, with Australia’s immediate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by its new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.

That leaves the United States as a solitary, initial obstacle. I say initial because were the U.S. to ratify Kyoto, there remains the question of India and China’s reduction commitments, which, as is, the treaty does not promise.

A few of the central concerns for participants will be: US participation in the treaty in the next stage of policy (2013/post-Kyoto), the role of China, India and other developing countries, reflection on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the global carbon market, and essentially how to address the delicacies of each situation while making the emission cuts the science demands.

In terms of the carbon market and how to form the role of developing countries in the future model, the issue of deforestation is likely to rise amidst the scant policy talks. Several countries with lots of forests – such as the host, Indonesia – intend on raising deforestation as a candidate for entry into the carbon markets, allowing developed countries to buy offsets by paying forested countries not to deforest. As a reporter on NPR this morning explained, as controversial as it is to pay for someone to not do something, there are so many other major points to debate that their deforestation proposal may meet few objections.

As for US participation, we’re certainly not getting any sign of change in Washington. The one bright spot for this round of UNFCCC meetings is that in addition to its usual representative, the U.S. is also sending James Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. He is the highest ranking official that Bush’s Administration has sent to international climate negotiations.

Additionally, Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer plan on making an appearance. And if she has things her way, Sen. Boxer will board her plane to Bali immediately after passing America’s Climate Security Act (a.k.a the Lieberman-Warner bill) through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, granting her bragging rights.

A world away, keep your eyes on who attends and what they say. Even though no conclusions are expected, the dynamic should be foretelling.

Yesterday’s New York Times had the sobering story:

Fall, the long-running series of shorter days and cooler nights, was canceled earlier this week after nearly 3 billion seasons on Earth, sources reported Tuesday.

The classic period of the year, which once occupied a coveted slot between summer and winter, will be replaced by new, stifling humidity levels, near-constant sunshine and almost no precipitation for months.

“As much as we’d like to see it stay, fall will not be returning for another season,’ National Weather Service president John Hayes announced during a muggy press conference Nov. 6. ‘Fall had a great run, but sadly, times have changed….” The cancellation was not without its share of warning signs. In recent years, fall had been reduced from three months to a meager two-week stint, and its scheduled start time had been pushed back later and later each year.

Okay, maybe this isn’t exactly a news story — Tom Friedman in yesterday’s NYT was merely reprinting a hilarious story from The Onion,” America’s Finest News Source.”

What makes this especially sad funny ironic is that, the same day, the New York Times also ran a front page news story on how the fashion industry is turning to climate experts to help them respond to the bizarre weather and changes in seasons we have been experiencing. In a stunning case of life imitating art, the Times quotes Michael Alexin, vice president for apparel design and development at Target, on what is happening to the fall (fashion) season:

Read more