This guest post is by Julian L. Wong and Dan Sanchez at the Center for American Progress.

South Korea may not be outdoing the United States’ clean energy commitments yet, but it has just announced intentions to adopt a 2020 emissions cap, the first developing (non-Annex I) country to do so. Reuters explains:

The government said it would choose a target this year from three options: an 8 percent increase from 2005 levels by 2020, unchanged from 2005, or 4 percent below 2005. Its emissions doubled from 1990 to 2005, the fastest growth in the OECD”¦.  Officials said they marked a big commitment to head off an estimated 30 percent rise in emissions that would result if no action were taken.

One might argue if South Korea is really a developing country””it is considered one under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was adopted in 1992, but was in 1996 subsequently admitted to the OECD, which is usually thought of as a club of the rich countries.

One might also question the choice of a 2005 baseline rather than 1990, which all the targets in the Kyoto Protocol are keyed to.  The reasoning behind the choice of a 2005 baseline is obvious from the quote above, which explains that South Korea’s emissions have risen steeply in the years since 1990.  The result is that none of the three choices will result in reductions from a 1990 level.

Nevertheless, the symbolic significance of the announcement cannot be overstated–South Korea is the first non-Annex I country to indicate that it will adopt quantifiable emissions targets for 2020.  While the article notes that South Korea’s commitment could be “voluntary,” the 2020 timeframe suggests that the country may be open to a binding emissions cap in the December round of international climate talks in Copenhagen, where a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, will be negotiated and likely to cover the period of 2013 through 2020.

Why is South Korea doing this?

Read more

Environmentalists assert that the reports by the panel are watered down by a requirement that sponsoring governments approve its summaries line by line.

Some experts fret that the organization, charged with assessing fast-evolving science, has failed to keep pace with an explosion of climate research.

At the same time, scientists who question the likelihood of a calamitous disruption of the Earth’s climate accuse the panel of cherry-picking studies and playing down levels of uncertainty about the severity of global warming.

“It just feels like the I.P.C.C. has gone from being a broker of science to a gatekeeper,” said John R. Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and a former panel author.

Ah, journalistic “balance,” how scientifically — and morally — inappropriate you have become.  And quoting Long Wrong Christy?  Say it ain’t so.

The above excerpt comes from the front page of today’s NYT‘s “Science Times” section in a piece titled, “Nobel Halo Fades Fast for Climate Change Panel,” by our old friend Andy Revkin.  Now one can objectively accuse the IPCC of many things, but overestimating or overselling the threat of global warming is just not one of them.  Quite the reverse.

The world’s emission path this decade quickly soared higher than their worst case-scenario (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: “Recent observations confirm “¦ the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised” “” 1000 ppm).

The IPCC has focused on a wide range of emissions scenarios without clearly explaining to the public the unmitigated catastrophe that faces us on the business as usual path:

• M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C
• Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path

As Dr. Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice for the Met Office’s Hadley Centre explains on their website (here):

Contrast that with a world where no action is taken to curb global warming. Then, temperatures are likely to rise by 5.5 °C and could rise as high as 7 °C above pre-industrial values by the end of the century.

Instead of such clarity, the IPCC provides this sort of gobbledygook to the public and policymakers in its 2007 Fourth Assessment:

Read more

The coal industry front group embroiled in an Astroturf scandal is now arguing that mountaintop removal coal mining helps communities “hampered because of a lack of flat space.” Joe Lucas, vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), told the Guardian that dynamiting the tops off of mountains — far from being the “rape of Appalachia” — is actually a boon to rural communities:

I can take you to places in eastern Kentucky where community services were hampered because of a lack of flat space — to build factories, to build hospitals, even to build schools. In many places, mountain-top mining, if done responsibly, allows for land to be developed for community space.

The concept of “responsible” mountain-top mining is laughable, as Mountain Justice explains:

Traditional mining communities disappear as jobs diminish and residents are driven away by dust, blasting and increased flooding and dangers from overloaded coal trucks careening down small, windy mountain roads. Mining companies buy many of the homes and tear them down. Dynamite is cheaper than people, so mountaintop removal mining does not create many new jobs.

Mountaintop removal generates huge amounts of waste. While the solid waste becomes valley fills, liquid waste is stored in massive, dangerous coal slurry impoundments, often built in the headwaters of a watershed. The slurry is a witch’s brew of water used to wash the coal for market, carcinogenic chemicals used in the washing process and coal fines (small particles) laden with all the compounds found in coal, including toxic heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury. Frequent blackwater spills from these impoundments choke the life out of streams.

ACCCE’s Joe Lucas — who can’t even admit that coal pollution contributes to global warming — is giving new meaning to the idea of the Flat Earth Society.

Let’s set aside for the moment that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) doesn’t fully model the House climate and clean energy bill — they utterly ignore a major cost containment provision and the clean energy bank, while underestimating likely efficiency gains.

The EIA analysis, “Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” still finds that the average cost to households from 2012 to 2030 (discounted) is $83! A fact sheet can be found here.

As The Hill wrote in “EIA says costs of climate bill modest at first“:

The move by bill sponsors to give away pollution allowances rather than selling them appears to be a good one; the EIA credits the free distribution of credits with keeping energy costs from rising precipitously….

Electric bills would increase only 3 to 4 percent by 2020 under a carbon cap imposed by the bill.

Reuters reports that EIA finds the clean energy bill would “increase the energy costs of the average family by $142 a year in 2020 and by $583 in 2030,” adding:

The estimate from the U.S. Energy Information Administration is in line with cost impact projections made by the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency, and contradict claims by energy and business trade groups that consumers would pay thousands of dollars more a year under a government plan to fight global warming.

In fact, the only reason the energy costs rise so much in 2030 compared to 2025 is that the allowance distribution to regulated utilities phases out after 2025.  While the EIA is stuck in a relatively rigid analysis and reporting methodology, in the real world, the increased auction revenues would be given back to consumers, which would again offset their increased energy costs with tax cuts.  So while energy costs might jump post-2050, net impacts on consumers would not.

The EIA projects an allowance price of $32 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent in 2020 — about double what EPA and I project and 50% higher than CBO’s projection.  Very unlikely.

The EIA has historically lowballed the prospects for energy efficiency, and here again they find a total drop in energy use under the climate bill of only about 3% in 2020 (3 quadrillion BTUs) and 6% in 2030 (6.5 quads).  According to the EPA analysis of the bill, Waxman-Markey lowers demand 7 quads in 2020 compared to business as usual, and 10.4 quads in 2030 (see “New EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey: Consumer electric bills 7% lower in 2020 thanks to efficiency “” plus 22 GW of extra coal retirements and no new dirty plants“).  That is similar to what the the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) calculates for the savings from W-M’s efficiency provisions “” 5 quads saved in 2020 and 12.3 quads in 2030 (see “The triumph of energy efficiency: Waxman-Markey could save $3,900 per household and create 650,000 jobs by 2030“).

If EIA had a decent model of energy efficiency, and if they had calculated the tax reduction from returning auction allowances back to consumers, I am quite certain that they would have again found the net cost to American families of close to a postage stamp a day even in 2030.

Even with all its flaws, the “total discounted GDP losses over the 2012 to 2030 time period” are a whopping 0.2%, which is pretty much what every major analysis of climate action finds (“Intro to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total cost — one tenth of a penny on the dollar“).

EIA has some interesting findings of the bill’s impact on how we use energy.

Read more

The Washington Post finally let through a good op-ed, “Falling Behind On Green Tech,” by John Doerr partner in VC Kleiner Perkins and Jeff Immelt, chairman and CEO of GE.

As I’ve been saying for over a decade now, the U.S. has lost its lead to other countries because conservatives have blocked the policies needed to turn the U.S. historical leadership in inventing new technologies (like solar photovoltaics and compact fluorescent light bulbs) into leadership in manufacturing those technologies (see “Why other countries kick our butt on clean energy: A primer“).

We are clearly not in the lead today. That position is held by China, which understands the importance of controlling its energy future. China’s commitment to developing clean energy technologies and markets is breathtaking.

Consider: Chinese cars are more than one-third more fuel-efficient than U.S. cars. China is investing 10 times as much on clean power, as a percentage of gross domestic product, as the United States is. China is on track to create 150,000 jobs through the deployment of 120 gigawatts of wind power by 2020 — an amount equivalent to today’s global total and nearly five times America’s. As a result, China is already curbing its carbon emissions substantially. This year alone, it will abate almost 350 million tons of CO2, as compared with business as usual. That’s as much as is emitted by Argentina.

Precisely (for more see “China begins transition to a clean-energy economy“).

What is the best response, according to Doerr and Immelt?  Passing an aggressive climate and clean energy bill — just as I’ve been saying (see “The only way to win the clean energy race is to pass the clean energy bill“):

Read more

Yes, the international offset market is an actual market that shrinks when the price drops (see “Do the 2 billion offsets allowed in Waxman-Markey gut the emissions targets?” and “The CDM: Rip-offsets or real reductions?“).

Indian CDM applications fall 30 per cent as carbon credit prices slump

The number of Indian carbon offset projects seeking approval under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) scheme has fallen by 30 per cent due to the global recession, according to an industry consultant.

“Project financing is not available, so people are postponing CDM investment decisions,” Chaitanya Kalia of Ernst & Young’s climate change and sustainability services told Reuters news agency last week.

India’s National CDM Authority used to receive an average of about 60 to 70 applications a month, but now only receives about 40, Kalia said.

The subcontinent has the world’s second-largest number of CDM projects after China, with more than 1,230 approved or awaiting validation, according to UN figures. Nearly 40 per cent are wind farm investments, while biomass accounts for a third of projects.

Electric Car Maker Expects Market to Heat Up

Read more

What exactly are we paying these Senators for?

Apparently, the latest complaint from what is supposedly the world’s most exclusive deliberative body is that it’s just too damn much for the American public to expect that their elected representatives deal with more than one big issue — health care and climate — at the same time.  As the WashPost reports in a story on the state of play of the Senate climate bill:

But other legislators wonder if, when the health-care debate finally ends, the Senate will have the stomach or the attention span [!!] for another complicated fight.

And it remains unclear how much clout President Obama will have left to sway wavering lawmakers.  “It’s very hard for Congress to do one big thing, much less do a couple of really big issues at the same time,” said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), whose state produces coal as well as wind power.

Yes, Senators exhausted from a few weeks of talking to other senators, taking a month break, and receiving large sums of money from lobbyists will need months and months of recuperation doing … what?  a bunch of really small, inconsequential things, before addressing the biggest threat to the health and well-being of all Americans.  Seriously!

The good news is that while Dorgan continues to raise concerns about carbon market manipulation, he actually seems to have softened his position on the bill:

Read more

I was not a big fan of the final version of “Cash for Clunkers” because its mileage improvement requirements were so inadequate, as Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) explained here.

But in the real world, the public has mostly turned in gas-guzzlers in exchange for fuel-efficient cars — which perhaps should not have been a total surprise since oil prices are rising, gas guzzlers remain a tough resell in the used car market, and most fuel-efficient cars are much cheaper than SUVs.  In fact, the AP reports:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the average mileage of new vehicles purchased through the program is 9.6 miles per gallon higher than for the vehicles traded in for scrap. Buyers of new cars and trucks that get 10 mpg better than their trade-ins get the $4,500 rebate. People whose cars get between 4 mpg and 10 mpg better fuel efficiency qualify for a smaller $3,500 rebate.

LaHood said some 80 percent of the traded-in vehicles are pickups or SUVs, meaning many gas-guzzlers are being taken off the road. The Ford Focus is a leading replacement vehicle. General Motors Co., Chrysler Group LLC and Ford accounted for 47 percent of the new vehicles purchased.

A 9 mpg gain translates into annual savings of 3.8 million barrels of oil per year and nearly $1,000 for consumers at the pump — not to mention that it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 660,000 metric tons a year.  Okay, not a cost-effective emission reducer, but still, given the multiple benefits of the program, pretty darn good.

Indeed, the environmental gain is even greater because the trade-ins are not resold to the public or shipped to the developing world — but recycled.

The economic gain in this depressed economy and even more depressed auto market are pretty big for such a small program:

Read more