Climate Change Articles 10-5-09 2.pdf

Climate News Weekly
As an exclusive service to NWFPA members, our staff sifts through hundreds of news articles
each week and selects those that may have bearing or interest to our members. The following
articles are a compilation from the week of October 5, 2009.
FEDERAL AGENCIES TO BE REQUIRED TO MEASURE, SET GOALS
ON EMISSIONS
The federal government will require each agency to measure its greenhouse gas emissions for
the first time and set targets to reduce them by 2020, under an executive order signed by
President Obama.
The measure affects everything from the electricity federal buildings consume to the carbon
output of federal workers' commutes.
"As the largest consumer of energy in the U.S. economy, the federal government can and
should lead by example when it comes to creating innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and use environmentallyresponsible
products and technologies," Obama said in a statement. "This executive order builds
on the momentum of the Recovery Act to help create a clean energy economy and demonstrates
the Federal government's commitment, over and above what is already being done, to reducing
emissions and saving money."
Each agency must report its 2020 emission targets to the Council on Environmental Quality
within 90 days.
Administration officials said they could not estimate the federal government's carbon
footprint, since they've never measured it before, but it ranks as the nation's largest energy
consumer. The government occupies nearly 500,000 buildings, operates more than 600,000
vehicles and employs more than 1.8 million civilian workers.
Under the executive order, all federal agencies will have to meet a series of environmental
targets over the next decade, including 50 percent recycling and waste diversion by 2015; a 30
percent reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020; and a 26 percent improvement in water
efficiency by 2020.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), who chairs the new House Democratic Livability Task
Force and has pushed for more money for low-carbon transportation, said the new policy made
fiscal as well as environmental sense.
"Taxpayers shouldn't be paying for Washington's inefficiencies, and I'm speaking of the
incredible energy and fuel wasted in our government buildings and vehicle fleets," Blumenauer
said. "As the biggest landlord in the nation, we need to show leadership by reducing fuel use,
cutting costs, and improving the operations of our agencies' fleets and buildings."
SOURCE: Washington Post, 10/5/09
1 Articles are excerpts or summaries from sources named.

CLIMATE CHANGE BILL DRAWS MIXED REACTIONS
Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer [D-CA] and John Kerry [D-MA] introduced a new
climate change bill to the Senate recently, bringing mixed reactions from Democrats and
Republicans, manufacturers, and labor unions.
The bill, called “The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act,” is meant to “create clean
energy jobs” and “achieve energy independence” while targeting “global warming pollution.”
“We think this is the ticket, first of all, to face up to this great challenge of global warming…
and also, it’s a great economic opportunity,” Sen. Boxer said, during an interview on C-Span’s
“Newsmakers” show.
The bill lays out a timeline for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, mandating a 20 percent
cut by 2020, and an 83 percent reduction by the year 2050. The percentages are based on
reductions from 2005 emissions levels.
Details regarding the allocation of cap-and-trade permits—an often touchy political issue—
were absent from the bill.
“These are fancy, complicated words for high-cost energy that will send jobs overseas
looking for cheap energy,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander [R-TN]. Sen. Alexander called for lowcost
“practical steps” to achieve low-carbon clean energy, citing increased nuclear energy
production, “electrify[ing] half of our cars and trucks,” and offshore exploration of oil and
natural gas as examples.
Resistance to the bill and its proposed changes also came from fellow Democrats, including
Sen. Jay Rockefeller [D-WV], who on issued a strong statement against the Boxer-Kerry bill.
“Requiring 20 percent emission reductions by 2020 is unrealistic and harmful—it is simply
not enough time to deploy the carbon capture and storage (CCS) and energy efficiency
technologies we need. Period.”
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) released a statement, stating
encouragement over the inclusion of provisions for nuclear research and alternative fuels but
voicing concern for a lack of detail on how additional costs will be mitigated and passed on to
manufacturers and consumers.
NAM also stated that the goal of a 20 percent emissions reduction by 2020 was costly,
presenting a “more significant technological and economic challenge to manufacturers while
resulting in little benefit to the environment.”
According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Boxer-Kerry climate-change bill
includes few provisions that are friendly to agriculture and will be strongly opposed by the
American Farm Bureau Federation.
"America's farmers and ranchers did not fare that well in the House-passed climate change
bill and they fare even worse in the Senate bill," said American Farm Bureau Federation
President Bob Stallman. "There are few benefits and even greater costs to agriculture and the
American public."
"The Waxman-Markey bill, passed narrowly by the House this summer, did at least include
credits to farmers for carbon-storing or carbon management practices. The Senate bill does not
guarantee any benefits to agriculture for carbon sequestration," Stallman said.
Another major concern for Farm Bureau is that the Boxer-Kerry bill would not prevent the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from continuing to move forward to fully regulate all
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The bill also does nothing to provide alternative
sources of energy to fill the energy deficit left by the reduction in fossil fuels, nor does it prevent
2 Articles are excerpts or summaries from sources named.

the EPA from using controversial indirect land use principles that penalize ethanol, according to
Stallman.
SOURCE: Epoch Times, 10/4/09; USAgNet, 10/5/09
OBAMA ADVISER SAYS NO CLIMATE CHANGE LAW THIS YEAR
President Barack Obama's top energy adviser said there is no way Congress will be able to
pass a bill on climate change this year.
"That's not going to happen," said the adviser, Carol Browner.
Browner made the statement at a conference organized by The Atlantic magazine, just days
after Senate Democrats introduced a major bill on climate change. In a video posted on the
magazine's Web site, Browner was asked about the prospects of enacting climate legislation by
the time negotiations on a global climate treaty begin in December in Copenhagen.
"Obviously, we'd like to be through the process, but that's not going to happen," Browner
said. "I think we would all agree the likelihood you would have a bill signed by the president on
comprehensive energy by the time we go early in December is not likely.
Climate change is competing with several other big issues for the attention of lawmakers.
Among the issues: overhauling the nation's health care system and imposing new financial
regulations on Wall Street.
Browner said the U.S. could still take a leading role at the Copenhagen talks, even without a
new climate law.
"We will go to Copenhagen and manage with whatever we have," she said.
SOURCE: Associated Press, 10/3/09
BUSINESS BLITZ SEEKS FAST PASSAGE OF SENATE CLIMATE BILL
Executives from the Dow Chemical Co., Entergy Corp., Nike Inc. and more than 140 other
companies and venture capital firms will convene in Washington to lobby Senate lawmakers to
pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill quickly.
"This is a powerful message that U.S. businesses are united on the urgency for tackling
climate change," contended Timberland Co. President and CEO Jeff Swartz, whose company
helped organize the lobbying blitz with the help of the investor coalition Ceres.
Swartz and other business leaders plan to have lunch tomorrow with the Senate's "Gang of
16," which includes Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and other industrial-state lawmakers
whose support is seen as crucial to passing the greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill (pdf)
introduced last week by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is slated to speak at a dinner with the business executives. The
executives will also meet Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.
The executives are also slated to meet with lawmakers and staff members in 35 Senate
offices, as well as with White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy Director Carol
Browner, according to officials familiar with the meetings.
Twenty-six of the companies, including Constellation Energy Group Inc., Exelon Corp. and
Starbucks Corp., underscored their support for congressional action on climate and energy
legislation in an open letter to Obama and Senate lawmakers recently.
"Putting a price on carbon will drive investment into cost-saving, energy-saving technologies
and will create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy," the letter noted. "For the
United States to compete and lead, you must act."
3 Articles are excerpts or summaries from sources named.

Exelon, which operates the nation's largest fleet of nuclear power plants, is helping to
coordinate a separate advertising blitz. The campaign, which includes the support of more than
two dozen utilities, unions and environmental groups, will begin with a print ad in major national
newspapers, according to an official knowledgeable of the campaign.
The print ad will call on the Senate to pass climate and energy legislation this year -- which
the groups contend would help create 1.7 million jobs.
SOURCE: New York Times, 10/5/09
CORPORATE AMERICA TAKES A BIG STEP IN MANAGING CARBON
FOOTPRINT
With carbon cap-and-trade legislation before Congress and increasing pressure from
shareholders, US companies know they’ll have to deal with their greenhouse gas emissions, or
carbon footprint, and many are jumping the gun to change their carbon liability into an asset.
“The best-managed companies are evaluating their carbon footprint,” says R. Paul Herman,
founder and CEO of HIP Investor Inc., a Californian investment advisory firm that has created
two sustainability indexes tracking the S&P 100 and S&P 500 constituent companies. “And
they’re managing it lower to save energy and costs, reduce their future volatility of materials
costs, mitigate potential environmental liabilities, and create new competitive advantages.”
Emissions generated in the creation of a company’s principle product or service, whether it’s
a megawatt of electricity or a truckload of goods moved 100 miles, can be relatively easy to
calculate. But other emissions, like those generated when your employees fly to meetings or
when consumers turn on your appliances, are harder to evaluate.
“Direct emissions are usually coming out of a company's smokestacks. They are easy to
measure,” says Chris Erickson, CEO of carbon accounting and consulting firm Climate Earth.
“The problem is that for most companies 80% of their emissions are indirect, and that means
they are hidden in their supply chain, because if a company manufactures a product, the design
decisions, transportation decisions and material decisions all have direct impact on emissions of
the suppliers that provide parts of the product.”
There are several tools available to measure a firm’s carbon footprint -- dozens of software
packages and consulting firms have sprung up in recent years to help analyze emissions -- but the
most widely used set of accounting guidelines is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, GGP, criteria
created by World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development in partnership with governments and businesses around the world.
The GGP divides carbon emissions into three areas. Scope 1 emissions are directly created
from the production of a product. Scope 2 includes indirect emissions from purchased electricity.
Finally, Scope 3 covers the remaining indirect emissions caused by employee travel, waste
management, use of products by consumers, and so on.
The Carbon Disclosure Project, a not-for-profit data collection agency funded by hundreds of
institutional investors, in mid-September released its annual report looking at the carbon
footprints of the 500 largest corporations.
Members of the project’s “Global 500” voluntarily submit data based on the GGP protocols.
This year’s report covered 409 responding corporations, accounting for ten billion tons of carbon
dioxide equivalents.
But even with defined protocols and wide participation, cross-sector analysis is complicated
by a corporation’s core business. One example is the financial services sector; how do you
4 Articles are excerpts or summaries from sources named.

quantify the emissions of the companies, projects and technologies that they fund, and whose
responsibility are they
Some banks have backed off from funding new coal-fired plants because of the carbon risk,
and investor pressure may push back on future funding of other emissions-intensive businesses
and technologies, like oil refineries or mass-scale agriculture.
Shareholders are also pressuring management teams. A PricewaterhouseCoopers report from
2008 lists 43 climate-related shareholder resolutions filed with US companies during 2007, with
15 leading to new climate commitments by management from firms like ConocoPhillips , Wells
Fargo , and Hartford Insurance. More shareholder challenges are expected in years to come.
But while there could be a short-term drag on company performance due to implementation
costs, longer-term results could be worth it.
SOURCE: CNBC.com, 10/5/09
CLIMATE CHANGE TALKS FAIL TO BREAK IMPASSE
Less than 10 weeks before the nations of the world are due to meet in Copenhagen to thrash
out a successor agreement to the Kyoto -protocol, the differences between poor and rich nations
are as wide as ever and becoming more entrenched.
Some 1,500 delegates are half way through a two-week meeting in Bangkok in an attempt to
break the deadlock and reduce a 180-page discussion document to a more manageable 30 pages.
Delegates had hoped to build on the momentum gained in New York two weeks ago when
China, Japan and India all made climate change pledges that seemed to mark a break with the
acrimonious debates that had gone before.
But at a stocktaking meeting, it rapidly became apparent that the talks were still deadlocked
on the big points.
The developing world wants the developed world to give commitments to more than 20 per
cent cuts in emissions and on financing for strategies that would mitigate the inevitable damage
involved in adapting to the new realities of a warmer world. The developed world wants the big
emerging economies to give firm undertakings on cutting the growth of their emissions.
"We see too little discussion on substantial key political issues, and that is the problem we
are facing. We are not tackling the big and difficult issues," Anders Turesson, the chief
negotiator for Sweden, which, at present, holds the rotating European Union presidency, said.
China, which has assumed the role of flagbearer for the developing nations, was blunt in its
assessment.
"What I see is a clear pattern: as soon as an agreement is reached or an instrument is adopted,
efforts get under way to undermine it, to move -further away from their -historical
responsibilities," Su Wei, the director general of China's department of climate change said.
One thing both blocs agree on is that time is running out. "This process seems unable to
deliver at the pace necessary to reach agreement in Copenhagen. We have to change gear," said
Mr Turesson.
SOURCE: Financial Times, 10/3/09
EU MULLS CARBON TAX TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE
European Union (EU) finance ministers discussed the idea of introducing a carbon tax across
the 27-nation bloc as a way to help fight climate change.
5 Articles are excerpts or summaries from sources named.

"Today, there were few reactions, but all the reactions were positive," Laszlo Kovacs, EU
Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, told reporters after presenting the idea to EU
finance ministers at an informal meeting in the Swedish port city of Gothenburg.
Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg, whose country holds the EU rotating presidency,
said there had been a constructive exchange of views and that the European Commission was
encouraged to make a formal proposal, possibly next year.
He said a number of ministers welcomed the idea of introducing a carbon tax to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from sectors outside the EU Emission Trading Scheme.
The EU currently runs the world's largest Emission Trading Scheme, which imposes
emission caps on certain EU industries, including power generators and some heavy industrial
plants, and requires them to buy extra permit if they want to emit more.
The new carbon tax is likely to be applied to transport, agriculture, forestry, households and
others.
But Kovacs admitted it would not be easy to reach a deal since taxation is reserved for
national sovereignty under EU rules and any change requires unanimity among 27 member
states.
"Introducing a new tax in the EU has never been easy, and particularly it is not easy in the
time of a financial and economic crisis," he said.
"But it is evident that the climate change is an even more disastrous global challenge than the
current financial and economic crisis. It's a question of life or death for the population of the
globe," he added.
Kovacs said the tax would not only help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU, but also
its revenues could be used in financing the fight against climate change in the developing world.
The revenues "should be used for climate change purposes (and) to finance the climate
change efforts of the developing countries, because they need some support and we need
revenues to support them," he said.
EU finance ministers also had an "active and constructive" discussion on the issue of climate
financing today, according to the Swedish EU presidency.
World governments are expected to reach a new deal on the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions to replace the Kyoto Protocol after it expires in 2012 at a United Nations conference
on climate change in Copenhagen this December, but current negotiations have been deadlocked,
with climate financing proving to be a stumbling block.
Developing countries have called for generous financial support from rich countries to help
them cut greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impact of global warming, for which
industrialized nations are historically responsible.
In early September, the European Commission unveiled a blueprint for scaling up
international finance to help poor nations, proposing that the EU would contribute some 2 to 15
billion euros (2.9 to 22 billion U.S. dollars) a year by 2020, a sum criticized by developing
countries as not enough.
SOURCE: Xinhua, 10/2/09
6 Articles are excerpts or summaries from sources named.