Pick one or the other: Climate Change or Natural Gas Drilling.
Do we have to Choose?
When, Neil Leary, Elizabeth Martin Perera and I met with James Warner, a legislative assistant to Arlen Specter, to discuss climate change, this was the answer. It’s not that the senate is against global climate change action; it’s that they represent such a diversity of people and must answer to a huge constituency group.
In the weeks before the Kerry Boxer climate change bill was brought to the table, Senator Specter’s office received many emails and phone calls encouraging the approval and adoption of the bill. However, once Specter moved to pass the bill out of committee, the phone calls against the bill came flooding in. If the senate is going to support climate change action, they’re going to do it a way that upsets the least number of people. Therefore, if its climate change action we want, it’s climate change action we’ll get… but it might not live up to the high standards environmentalist might like. For example, if it atmospheric CO2 levels and rising seas that we’re worried about, the environmental degradation associated with natural gas drilling, or nuclear power plants is going to take a back-row seat.
It’s not just lack of information, or even urgency that is holding United States climate change legislation back. It’s the beaurocracy of our Democratic government and the lack of interest on the part of United States citizens. Yes, it’s crazy that our President can send troops to Afghanistan without the approval of Senate but cannot mandate legislation regarding the future of people and ecosystems in the same manner, however it’s what we’ve got. As far as I see it, we’ve got three options:
- Complain about it
- Change it
- Work with it & around it
The first will get us nowhere. The second will require a revolution (and it’s probably coming). Right now, it seems the best option we have is to work with and around the current system. We all need to call our senators and support them. Our voices really do influence what goes on in Capital Hill, something I didn’t believe to be true until a few weeks ago. Calling in support of a bill is absolutely necessary, but it’s equally critical that we thank our senators for their actions.
I still believe the most powerful action we as individuals can take however, is to increase the public awareness of climate change and its implications for our futures. Responding on personal and communal levels, we can demonstrate our understanding and support of climate change action and have a much greater influence on national and international legislation and agreements. We can demonstrate that there doesn’t have to be a choice between decreasing emissions and producing dangerous radioactive waste or designing and building healthy ecosystems. The future is ours to create and we need to claim it now.
Tags: climate change, climate change education, common but differentiated responsibilities, Danielle Hoffman, United States Senate, US Energy Policy
If we are lucky and attentive, our four years in higher education should leave us with the ability to handle all the greatest challenges our world can throw at our generation. But perhaps the hardest and most important skill to master as an environmentalist is how to look squarely at the bald facts describing our situation, and not fall into a pit of despair. The resilient humor and persistence necessary to make a career in environmentalism or just to live a sustainable life is largely a self-taught skill.
Two weeks ago, it was announced that a legally-binding agreement, the goal environmentalists around the world have pursued for years, will again be delayed another year. Listening to my classmates’ frustration that week only made my own despair seem larger, darker, and more pressing.
What would a “successful” Copenhagen conference entail? If a legally-binding agreement is off the table, what will it take for us to walk away from these negotiations with fuel for our hope? What will it take on a political level? A demonstration of powerful leadership from countries already pulling their weight in addressing climate change? A commitment from India and/or China to higher emissions cutbacks than we expected? What smaller victories can we pull from the political sphere?
What about on a personal level, the things we can control? Maybe I’ll make a point to ask all the European youth delegates how recycling is taught at their universities. Maybe I’ll end up with new friendships, or new ideas for projects and changes to be shared at home. Maybe it’ll be enough just to see first-hand that there are other people my age out there who are more concerned about Clean Development Mechanisms than a laundry quota.
My intention is not to lower our expectations of Copenhagen, nor give the illusion that it is acceptable to continue delaying the hard, inevitable political and economic choices. Every delay makes our future work harder. But for my own sanity, and because this is the way, in the end, projects get done and environmentalism will work, we all should ask ourselves this before we leave for Copenhagen: “what is it I can do to pull some purpose out of this conference? What will leave me feeling that I accomplished something, however small?”
REDD programs are not currently included under the Kyoto protocol, but there is a strong push for including them in the post-2012 agreement to be decided in Copenhagen next month. REDD stands for “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation,” and stands to be an important new aspect of Clean Development Mechanisms. You can find a neat summary of what REDD is and some of the issues of implementation in my group’s key issue paper on REDD, found here.
One important issue in regards to implementing REDD programs is in the financing. Depending on who finances a REDD program, the implementation will probably be different. If a government or non-profit decides to finance a REDD program, they may or may not be doing it to gain carbon credit, and their motivation would differ vastly from a corporation, who would probably want carbon emission credits for conservation. However, due to problems of leakage and additionality, it is still very tricky to compensate people with credits. If someone is awarded carbon credits for a REDD program, it is giving them the right to not lower their emissions through mitigation. If the credits awarded do not, in fact, lower total emissions worldwide due to problems of leakage, additionality, or permanence, then the effect of the REDD program is the opposite of what was intended, and it becomes counterproductive.
Policymakers will have to think through every possibility and safeguard REDD against those threats, which will be no small feat. However, if done properly, REDD can have enormous benefits for the local inhabitants of the forested area and for the rest of the world.
Tags: cdm, Clean Development Mechanism, conservation, deforestation, Financing, forests, REDD
On December 9, 2009 President Obama will visit the UNFCC conference in Copenhagen to pledge the US to 17% emissions reductions by 2020. His appearance will be brief, as he is scheduled to be in Olso the following day to receive his Nobel Peace Prize. The “stringency” of his 17% commitment is unknown, which is especially troublesome since the US climate legislation is stuck in the Senate. Last month the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee adopted a proposal to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020, but some Senators are already calling for reductions to this proposal.
So when can US citizens expect Congress to act on climate legislation? Some companies have already instituted new practices that they suspect will comply with the pending legislation, but as noted by Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change “Industry needs certainty, and without a very strong role played by the administration, they are not likely to get it.” She also suggested that “Real leadership from the White House is the only way to get a bill through the Senate, and a bill is how we will get certainty.”
So perhaps Obama’s brief trip to Copenhagen is a step in the right direction, but is that enough? Is it that his Administration is just too bogged down with problems in Afghanistan and the Congressional struggle over healthcare reform? Is that an excuse? Or are the citizens to blame for not putting enough pressure on our leaders (Congressional and Presidential) to take stronger action?
Unfortunately as of November 11, 2009 Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus told the Wall Street Journal that “It’s common understanding that climate-change legislation will not be brought up on the Senate floor and pass the Senate this year.” Is it possible that President Obama’s trip to Copenhagen will promote a new sense of urgency in Congress?
Only time will tell.
As official members of the Youth Group Delegation to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP15 in Copenhagen in December, conducting interviews with public leaders who are actively involved in initiatives relating to Climate Change is one of the main priorities for the Dickinson Cop15 research team.
In the fall leading up to the conference, our research team has conducted research and generated preliminary reports on prominent countries and on key issues within the Kyoto Protocol. One of the small research clusters focused their research on issues of Reduction in Emissions through Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). For more information on REDD check out our REDD report or the UN-REDD Programme Fund website. Currently REDD projects have been financed through an aid-based scheme and implemented by a host of international organizations like the United Nations Development Program in conjunction with local organizations. According to the UNREDD Semi-Annual Report (found on the UN website) projects have been approved in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Paupa New Guinea, Tanzania, Vietnam, and a few other countries. These projects have been funded by generous contributions most notably from the Norwegian Government.
There have been discussions in the last COPs to integrate REDD projects into the Kyoto Prototocol. These projects could potentially be Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) programs or Joint Implimentation (JI) programs. However, there has been reluctance within the international community about whether REDD should be included as part of the International Carbon Market. This would allow countries to receive carbon credits for the offsets in emissions. There have been concerns that REDD projects will not effectively sequester carbon over long periods of time (permanance), will not sequester additional amounts of carbon that would not be released anyway (additionality), be hard to measure emissions reductions (reference level problems, not attract enough funding, and will not successfully prevent deforestation from spilling over into unprotected areas (leakage).
The JUMA Project in northern Brazil has successfully attracted enough financial support to effectively protect local communities, and prevent local deforestation according to Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance Standards, which were validated by the German TÜV SÜD Industries Service. The project has been integrated successfully into an International Voluntary Carbon Market.
REDD JUMA Project in Northern Brazil
One of the largest challenges for establishing a program like this is finding sufficient funding. The JUMA project included a unique fund raising scheme where the international hotel chain Marriott committed to fund $2 million over three to four years by soliciting the people who stayed in their hotel to donate $1 to offset their visit. This money helped contribute to local education programs, sustainable development programs, and stipends given to local people in return for their commitment not to deforest. For more information check out the Marriott Hotels website.
Our research cluster was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to interview Mark London the consultant for the Marriott Hotels and the author of the popular books Amazon and The Last Trees. He discussed the success of the JUMA project, challenges for REDD programs, and his views on the potential for REDD programs to be incorporated into the Kyoto Protocol. Interview with Mark London Mark London was interviewed by Philip Rothrock, Jennifer Ramos, and Andrea Dominguez on November 16th 2009 at Dickinson College in Kaufman Hall after hearing his lecture on the Amazon and Deforestation.
Tags: climate change, Dickinson College, Kyoto to Copenhagen, LULUCF, Philip Rothrock, REDD, student research
Your Comments