by Rona Fried
Over the past couple of weeks as President Obama reached his first 100 days in office, news stations like MSNBC and CNN have been asking viewers what they see as his most important accomplishment to date. The answer: Obama’s diplomatic efforts are raising the standing of the U.S. in the eyes of countries around the world. For the past eight years, the U.S. has been viewed as a thug, but Obama’s willingness to open his heart and reach out his hand is changing our standing in the world for the better. Along these lines, his administration seems to working behind the scenes to break the logjam that has held the world back from aggressive action on climate change.
Last week, the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate – high-level diplomatic discussions on climate change – took place in Washington. Participants felt the discussions improved the likelihood of reaching an agreement on an international climate treaty by the end of this year. Countries representing 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions were there – there were hints that the U.S. is making headway on bringing China, India and other major developing countries into the fold, long a bone of contention in climate change agreements.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "As the world’s biggest economies and the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, they and the US have a "special responsibility" to address climate change," which she called, "a clear and present danger to our world." UN climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said, "The meeting was very positive and constructive. I saw none of the acrimony that I’ve seen in previous meetings of this kind."
Further meetings will be held at the end of May in Paris, in June, in Italy during the G8 summit, and possibly more after that.
But Will Obama Succeed in the U.S.?
As the news continues to pour in on the progression of climate change, occurring faster than even the most conservative projections, we watch with wonder at the continuing fight among US politicians as to whether and how much we should address it. Last week, massive ice chunks fell from a shelf in Antarctic, and researchers warned that 1,300 square miles of ice could break off in coming weeks.
Sure, the news from Washington DC is leagues better than it was under the Bush Administration. Just this week we heard the plant that heats the Capitol no longer runs on coal. The Bureau of Land Management announced it would invest $41 million from the Recovery Act to reduce the backlog of pending applications for solar and wind projects on public lands and to development transmission lines. A new 750 MW coal plant was nixed in Michigan, the latest of 75 coal plants to be canceled.
And a slew of studies show there would be enormous economic benefits from fast action on climate change. For example, the US EPA released an analysis that shows the average American household would pay about a dime per day, or $98-$140 a year, under the cap-and-trade legislation proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, American Clean Energy and Security Act. The dime a day would pay to reduce greenhouse emissions – it doesn’t factor in the benefits of taking action. Dozens of studies show the enormous job creation potential of energy legislation.
The Union of Concerned Scientists will soon release the study, "Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy," that demonstrates the positive results from passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. If the U.S. implements a suite of climate, energy and transportation policies, we would cap emissions 26% below 2005 levels and save individuals and businesses $346 billion in 2020. By 2030, we’d cut emissions 56% below 2005 levels and see savings of $465 billion in that year. The average U.S. household would pay $900 less for energy, including $580 on transportation (fuel, vehicle and driving) and $320 on electricity and heating fuels, after investing in home efficiency improvements. Businesses collectively would save $130 billion.
Although a nationwide limit on carbon emissions would slightly increase energy prices, reduced energy demand – more than 30% – would more than offset that. The savings would come from energy efficient buildings and industrial processes, cleaner cars, and a more efficient transportation system. Over 50% of the emissions reductions would come from the electric generation sector – power plant carbon emissions could be 84% lower than 2005 levels by 2030.
And polls uniformly show that Americans want climate energy legislation, even if it increases energy costs.
But a headline in The Hill, tells it all: U.S. Senator Reid Sees Global Warming Debate as a Big Headache. Should utilities be required nationwide to derive a percentage of their fuel from renewable sources? The South wants hydro and nuclear to be considered "renewables;" Rust Belt Democrats want big carbon emitters like steel or manufacturing protected, possibly through financial compensation; coal states want lower short-term targets for emission reductions so the industry can develop clean coal technology. Republicans call cap-and-trade a tax. It’s not at all clear there are enough votes to pass climate legislation. And industries are jumping all over themselves producing studies that show how expensive carbon caps will be.
Meanwhile, only 16% of electric utilities are setting and disclosing absolute greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, according to the CDP Electric Utilities Report 2009 even though the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that over 50% of electricity in 2030 will come from power plants in operation today.
So far, despite his best efforts, Obama hasn’t been able to achieve bipartisan support for much of anything, much less major climate legislation. It would be a shame if he were more successful working in partnership with the rest of the world than in our own country.
++++
Rona Fried, Ph.D. is President of SustainableBusiness.com
Loading...