Communication on climate issues is critical. Unfortunately, in recent years many media outlets have cut back on environmental coverage. This past October, Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism suspended its dual-degree program in environmental journalism.
However, there is still great journalism on climate change being done. A Grist post points to a listing of 15 articles related to climate change which are finalists for the Earth Journalism Awards. You can read the 15 pieces, and vote on them, here.
Some background on the Earth Journalism Awards:
The Earth Journalism Awards program has evolved out of, and builds on, several other programs sponsored by Internews:
Every Human Has Rights Media Awards
Internews carried out the Every Human Has Rights Media Awards in partnership with The Elders and the Every Human Has Rights campaign on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thirty winners were selected by expert juries and invited to Paris in December 2008 to attend and cover the events of the 60th anniversary. A video of highlights of the awards ceremony can be seen here.
Earth Journalism Network (EJN)
The Earth Journalism Network is a project of Internews, established to empower and enable journalists in the Global South to improve their environmental coverage. Since 2004, EJN has trained over 750 developing country journalists, who have produced 1,400+ stories – including award-winning investigative reports – as a direct result of their activities. As part of the Climate Change Media Partnership, EJN has brought a total of 74 journalists from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean to COP13 in Bali and COP14 in Poznan. EJN has also supported research activities to chart the quantity and quality of climate change stories in the media.
The Environmental Law and Policy Reading Group meeting this week is focusing on livestock, agriculture, and climate change. The meeting information is below.
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions:
Wednesday, November 11 2009
6:30 pm
JG 646
Agenda:
A question of growing concern in the discussion of climate change is the
contribution of industrial agriculture, particularly livestock production,
to climate change. It is now estimated that nearly 20% of the world’s
greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock. While agriculture and
livestock are major contributors to the problem, changing the way we
consume and produce meat also offers great possibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Attached are several starter readings on this issue, but you are encouraged to come with your own views on the matter and additional expertise! We look forward to seeing you there!
1. The UN produced a widely-cited article in 2006 called “Livestock’s Long
Shadow,” at http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
- This is excellent background, though somewhat lengthy.
2. Attached is an article called “Food, livestock production, energy,
climate change, and health” by authors out of Australia, the UK, and Chile.
- One of the solutions to the problem of overconsumption of meat is a
“contract and converge” solution: can we expect “high consuming countries”
to voluntarily reduce their meat consumption? If meat consumption cannot be voluntarily reduced, can we legislate or ration the amount of meat each
consumer is allowed?
- Does the “contract and converge” model allow for poorer, low-consuming
countries to enjoy eating meat, or are we asking them to make a sacrifice
we are unwilling to make?
- The livestock sector is socially and politically highly significant in
developing countries, how should policy-makers consider this societal
importance?
3. See also the recent NYT article “The Carnivore’s Dilemma” by Nicollette
Hahn Niman (lawyer and livestock rancher)
at:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opinion/31niman.html?_r=1&em
- Niman suggests that smaller-scale, “traditional” livestock farming may be
the solution to eating meat the climate friendly way, but is this realistic
given that grass-fed, free-range animals require a significant amount of
pasture, and the world is still facing a crisis in feeding the expanding
population on a shrinking amount of arable land?
- Niman also suggests that “singling out meat” is a poor approach to
solving the climate crisis. Since meat production represents some of the
lowest-hanging fruit in terms of agricultural carbon emissions, are we
correct to focus on meat, or should we approach the problem in a more
holistic manner, as Niman suggests, eating locally-grown, in-season,
minimally-processed foods?
4. Further questions/ considerations:
- Looking forward to Copenhagen: how will global policy-makers deal with
agriculture?
- Neither Waxman-Markey nor the Senate climate change bill deal with
agriculture emissions in a significant way. Does this demonstrate a lack of
commitment in the U.S. to dealing with agriculture-related emissions,
political impediments (agriculture lobby), or a simple oversight? How might
the domestic policy issues reflect future problems in international
policies?
NYPIRG, the New York Public Interest Research Group, has sent out a very useful summary of the current status of climate policy, which is posted below.
It’s part of a partnership with 1Sky, a national climate advocacy group, to fight for climate solutions. You can (and should!) get involved by signing up here.
***
NYPIRG 1Sky Policy Update
November 10, 2009
This week was a big week for climate change legislation in the U.S. Senate. The Kerry-Boxer bill passed out of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee. In addition, Senators Kerry (D-MA), Graham (R-SC), and Lieberman (I-CT) announced that they will start working on a “dual track” climate bill with the help of the White House.
Please visit www.1sky.org/s1733 for a detailed analysis of the bill and graphs of the allocation distribution over time.
Kerry-Boxer Passed Out of EPW Committee
Chairwoman Boxer (D-CA) and ten other Democrats voted to pass the Kerry-Boxer bill out of the EPW last week.
Senators in opposition to the bill and action on climate generally boycotted the committee meeting altogether, citing the need for more detailed economic analysis of the bill. This is despite the fact that the US EPA had conducted a thorough economic analysis in the weeks leading up to EPW markup.
Despite the boycott, Boxer brought top officials to the committee meeting to answer questions about the financial impacts of the bill. The next day, EPW staff explained the pieces of the bill to committee members. Opposition members did not attend either meeting.
Senate rules prevent markup of a bill unless there are at least two members of the minority present. In the absence of the Republican minority members, Boxer passed the bill out of committee without amendment, which only requires a majority of members be present. Eleven of the twelve democrats on the committee voted in favor of passage; Senator Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, voted against passage because in the absence of a markup, he was unable to address two of his major concerns: 2020 emissions reduction targets and agricultural issues.
Kerry-Graham-Lieberman “Dual Track”
On the same day that the EPW committee passed the Kerry-Boxer bill, Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) announced their intention to create a tri-partisan “dual track’ of climate negotiations. These negotiations will take place at the same time as do negotiations on the Boxer-Kerry bill. The goal of the new partnership is to find “a possible compromise climate change and energy legislative package that could win the support of 60 Senators and the White House.” See http://bit.ly/4nx2px. The new group met with top White House officials last week to discuss next steps moving forward. It is still unclear what impact the impact that these new negotiations will have on the prospects of passing a climate bill this year.
Clean Energy Partnerships Act of 2009
Last week, the Clean Energy Partnerships Act of 2009 was introduced by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) with co-sponsors Max Baucus (D-MT), Mark Begich (D-AK), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). The Act will create a domestic offsets program and provide funding for other domestic agriculture programs that reduce carbon emissions or enhance carbon sequestration in the agriculture and forestry sectors. This bill likely will be merged into the final Boxer-Kerry bill.
Senate Climate Bill Timing
Many Washington insiders have said that Congress may take up financial regulatory reform in the next couple of months, before considering clean energy legislation. Some view this as a setback and others have said that regulatory reform is a crucial step towards ensuring that any carbon market created under a cap and trade system are thoroughly monitored.
Copenhagen Update
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change met in Barcelona, Spain last week for the final round of negotiations before the much-anticipated Copenhagen COP15 meeting. Unfortunately, the negotiations are floundering somewhat with a growing divide between developed and developing nations over emissions reductions targets and finance for adaptation, reduced deforestation, clean technology transfer, to name a few.
In fact, the African Group, a bloc of African countries that negotiate together, threatened to boycott the talks until the developed nations (Annex I) put their short term emissions targets on the table.
Take Action Now!
With less than a month to go before a critical round of international climate talks in Copenhagen, President Obama must rise to the occasion and push for bold climate action at home and around the world. Our partners at the 1Sky Campaign have created an online petition at http://www.1sky.org/stepup to encourage the President to stand up for a strong bill in the U.S. Senate and a “FAB” (fair, ambitious and binding) treaty. Please sign the petition today at http://www.1sky.org/stepup and then spread the word to your friends!
On September 25th, a CIA press release announced the opening of its new Center on Climate Change and National Security. On October 6, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) announced his intent to block funding for the center though an amendment to the FY 2010 Defense Appropriations bill.
However, Barrasso’s amendment failed, and the spending bill was approved. It is currently in conference to reconcile House and Senate versions.
As the Wall Street Journal notes, the fight over funding CIA assessment of the security implications of climate change extends back to the Clinton administration:
This is the latest round of a periodic battle Republicans have waged against efforts to involve intelligence agencies in climate assessments.
…The origins of the fight date back to the Clinton administration, led by Vice President Al Gore, launched a number initiatives in the late 1990s to study the security implications of climate change. But just as the CIA was launching its Environmental Center, a Republican-controlled Congress slashed its funding. The center and related projects wound down shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
However, in recent years, the intelligence community has grown increasingly concerned about climate change. Last fall, the National Intelligence Council’s 2025 forecast anticipated significant security impacts from climate change:
The predicted shift toward a less U.S.-centric world will come at a time when the planet is facing a growing environmental crisis, caused largely by climate change, Fingar said. By 2025, droughts, food shortages and scarcity of fresh water will plague large swaths of the globe, from northern China to the Horn of Africa.
For poorer countries, climate change “could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” Fingar said, while the United States will face “Dust Bowl” conditions in the parched Southwest. He said U.S. intelligence agencies accepted the consensual scientific view of global warming, including the conclusion that it is too late to avert significant disruption over the next two decades. The conclusions are in line with an intelligence assessment produced this summer that characterized global warming as a serious security threat for the coming decades.
Here’s the full CIA press release:
CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security
September 25, 2009
The Central Intelligence Agency is launching The Center on Climate Change and National Security as the focal point for its work on the subject. The Center is a small unit led by senior specialists from the Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Science and Technology.
Its charter is not the science of climate change, but the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources. The Center will provide support to American policymakers as they negotiate, implement, and verify international agreements on environmental issues. That is something the CIA has done for years. “Decision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security. The CIA is well positioned to deliver that intelligence,” said Director Leon Panetta.
The Center will assume responsibility for coordinating with Intelligence Community partners on the review and declassification of imagery and other data that could be of use to scientists in their own climate-related research. This effort draws on imagery and other information that is collected in any event, assisting the US scientific community without a large commitment of resources.
The new Center does more than bring together in a single place expertise on an important national security topic—the effect environmental factors can have on political, economic, and social stability overseas. It will also be aggressive in outreach to academics and think tanks working the issue. The goal is a powerful asset recognized throughout our government, and beyond, for its knowledge and insight.
CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security
September 25, 2009
The Central Intelligence Agency is launching The Center on Climate Change and National Security as the focal point for its work on the subject. The Center is a small unit led by senior specialists from the Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Science and Technology.
Its charter is not the science of climate change, but the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources. The Center will provide support to American policymakers as they negotiate, implement, and verify international agreements on environmental issues. That is something the CIA has done for years. “Decision makers need information and analysis on the effects climate change can have on security. The CIA is well positioned to deliver that intelligence,” said Director Leon Panetta.
The Center will assume responsibility for coordinating with Intelligence Community partners on the review and declassification of imagery and other data that could be of use to scientists in their own climate-related research. This effort draws on imagery and other information that is collected in any event, assisting the US scientific community without a large commitment of resources.
The new Center does more than bring together in a single place expertise on an important national security topic—the effect environmental factors can have on political, economic, and social stability overseas. It will also be aggressive in outreach to academics and think tanks working the issue. The goal is a powerful asset recognized throughout our government, and beyond, for its knowledge and insight.
On September 30, 2009, the EPA proposed a new rule under the Clean Air Act that would require permits certifying that the best-available control technologies have been implemented for new or significantly facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year. This will cover almost 70% of stationary sources, and is tailored to avoid regulating small sources of CO2 emissions. The complete proposed rule can be found here.
From the EPA fact sheet:
- The rule proposes new thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that define when Clean Air Act (CAA) permits under the New Source Review (NSR) and title V operating permits programs would be required for new or existing industrial facilities.
- The proposed thresholds would “tailor” the permit programs to limit which facilities would be required to obtain NSR and title V permits and would cover nearly 70 percent of the national GHG emissions that come from stationary sources, including those from the nation’s largest emitters—including power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities.
- Small farms, restaurants and many other types of small facilities would not be subject to these permitting programs.
- This proposal addresses the emissions of the group of six greenhouse gases (GHGs) that may be covered by an EPA rule controlling or limiting their emissions:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Methane (CH4)
- Nitrous oxide (N2O)
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
- EPA is proposing carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) as the preferred metric for determining GHG emissions rates for any combination of these six GHGs, but we are requesting comment in this proposal on alternatives. Emissions of greenhouse gases are typically expressed in a common metric, so that their impacts can be directly compared, as some gases are more potent (have a higher global warming potential or GWP) than others. The international standard practice is to express GHGs in CO2e. Emissions of gases other than CO2 are translated into CO2 equivalents by using the gases’ global warming potentials.
- Under the Title V operating permits program, EPA is proposing a major source emissions applicability threshold of 25,000 tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide CO2e for existing industrial facilities. Facilities with GHG emissions below this threshold would not be required to obtain an operating permit.
- Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) portion of NSR—which is a permit program designed to minimize emissions from new sources and existing sources making major modifications—EPA is proposing a:
- Major stationary source threshold of 25,000 tpy CO2e. This threshold level would be used to determine if a new facility or a major modification at an existing facility would trigger PSD permitting requirements.
- Significance level between 10,000 and 25,000 tpy CO2e. Existing major sources making modifications that result in an increase of emissions above the significance level would be required to obtain a PSD permit. EPA is requesting comment on a range of values in this proposal, with the intent of selecting a single value for the GHG significance level.
- Operating permits contain air emissions control requirements that apply to a facility, such as national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants, new source performance standards, or best available control technologies required by a PSD permit. In general, since there are currently no such air emission control requirements, existing facilities with GHG emissions greater than 25,000 tons per year that already have operating permits would not need to immediately revise them. At the end of a 5-year period when the operating permit must be renewed, these facilities would be required to include estimates of their GHG emissions in their permit applications. Facilities may use the same data reported to EPA under the Mandatory Reporting Rule to fulfill this requirement.
- New or modified facilities with GHG emissions that trigger PSD permitting requirements would need to apply for a revision to their operating permits to incorporate the best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions. These controls are determined on a case-by-case basis during the PSD process.
- Under the proposed emissions thresholds, EPA estimates that 400 new sources and modifications would be subject to PSD review each year for GHG emissions. Less than 100 of these would be newly subject to PSD. In total, approximately 14,000 large sources would need to obtain operating permits for GHG emissions under the operating permits program. About 3,000 of these sources would be newly subject to CAA operating permit requirements as a result of this action. The majority of these sources are expected to be municipal solid waste landfills.
- Municipal solid waste landfills are the second largest source of human-related methane emissions in the United States, accounting for approximately 23 percent of these emissions in 2007. Landfill methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, can be captured, converted, and used as an energy source, reducing emissions and providing an important renewable energy source.
- The current thresholds for criteria pollutants such as lead, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, are 100 and 250 tons per year (tpy). These thresholds are in effect now, and are appropriate for criteria pollutants. However, they are not feasible for GHGs. Without the tailoring rule, these lower thresholds would take effect automatically for GHGs with the adoption of any EPA rule that controls or limits GHG emissions.
- The proposed thresholds would continue to preserve the ability of the NSR and title V operating permit programs to achieve and maintain public health and environmental protection goals while avoiding an administrative burden that would prevent state and local permitting authorities from processing CAA permits efficiently.
- EPA will accept comment on this proposal for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
In a segment for NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday, Liane Hansen interviews Professor Michael Gerrard, of Columbia Law School’s Center for Climate Change Law, about the environmental impacts of the popular Cash for Clunkers program.
You can read the interview, and listen to the audio here.
“The program has been wonderful for the economy, but it’s been only a middling success for greenhouse gas emissions,” Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School’s new Center for Climate Change Law tells Weekend Edition host Liane Hansen.
To start, Gerrard says, “there was a provision in the law that automobiles over 25 years old could not be traded in. And that made no sense from an environmental standpoint. It was put there to help the dealers in used auto parts, but it really didn’t help the environment at all.”
Additionally, “the minimum required difference in the mileage for the old vehicles that were traded in and the new vehicles that were bought was just 4 miles per gallon — which is not much of a difference at all.”
To make a bigger impact, the government could have required a greater mileage differential, Gerrard says. “You could have had a minimum of 15 mpg differential, which would have made a big difference.”
People did buy cars with better average gas mileage, Gerrard says, “but it is still not a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
“There are some calculations that it cost somewhere between $200 and $400 per ton of carbon dioxide reduced, depending on what assumptions are used,” he says. “That’s way above the market price of carbon and way above many, many other methods of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
Tom Friedman’s op-ed this morning underlines the importance of developing an approach to climate change that is integrated into a broader strategy for addressing global environmental problems. He interviews Glen Prickett, of Conservation International:
“We need to stop thinking about these issues in isolation — each with its own champion, constituency and agenda — and deal with them in an integrated way, the way they actually occur on the ground,” argued Glenn Prickett, senior vice president with Conservation International. “We tend to think about climate change as just an energy issue, but it’s also about land use: one-third of greenhouse gas emissions come from tropical deforestation and agriculture. So we need to preserve forests and other ecosystems to solve climate change, not only to save species.”
But we also need to double food production to feed a growing population. “So we’ll need to do that without clearing more forests and draining more wetlands, which means farmers will need new technologies and practices to grow more food on the same land they use today — with less water,” he added. “Healthy forests, wetlands and grasslands not only preserve biodiversity and store carbon, they also help buffer the impacts of climate change. So our success in tackling climate change, poverty, food security and biodiversity loss will depend on finding integrated solutions from the land.”
In short…we need to make sure that our policy solutions are as integrated as nature itself.
The NYT has been emphasizing the national security frame for climate policy this month. Following Aug. 9’s front page story about increasing attention to climate-related security issues at State and DOD, today the paper’s editorial board laments lack of progress on greenhouse gas regulations and recommends that framing the issue in security terms could be “pretty good politics”:
Advocates of early action have talked about green jobs, about keeping America competitive in the quest for new technologies, and about one generation’s moral obligation to the next. Those are all sound arguments. They have not been enough to fully engage the public, or overcome the lobbying efforts of the fossil fuel industry.
Proponents of climate change legislation have now settled on a new strategy: warning that global warming poses a serious threat to national security. Climate- induced crises like drought, starvation, disease and mass migration, they argue, could unleash regional conflicts and draw in America’s armed forces, either to help keep the peace or to defend allies or supply routes.
This is increasingly the accepted wisdom among the national security establishment. A 2007 report published by the CNA Corporation, a Pentagon-funded think tank, spoke ominously of climate change as a “threat multiplier” that could lead to wide conflict over resources.
This line of argument could also be pretty good politics — especially on Capitol Hill, where many politicians will do anything for the Pentagon. Both Senator John Kerry, an advocate of strong climate change legislation, and former Senator John Warner, a former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, say they have begun to stress the national security argument to senators who are still undecided about how they will vote on climate change legislation.
One can only hope that these arguments turn the tide in the Senate. Mr. Kerry, Mr. Warner and like- minded military leaders must keep pressing their case, with help from the Pentagon and the White House. National security is hardly the only reason to address global warming, but at this point anything that advances the cause is welcome.
The Times underlines that better messaging is important because although some of the worst effects of climate change will unfold in decades to come, action must be taken in the present to prevent buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmsophere:
The problem, when it comes to motivating politicians, is that the dangers from global warming — drought, famine, rising seas — appear to be decades off. But the only way to prevent them is with sacrifices in the here and now: with smaller cars, bigger investments in new energy sources, higher electricity bills that will inevitably result once we put a price on carbon.
Mainstream scientists warn that the longer the world waits, the sooner it will reach a tipping point beyond which even draconian measures may not be enough. Under one scenario, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, now about 380 parts per million, should not be allowed to exceed 450 parts per million. But keeping emissions below that threshold will require stabilizing them by 2015 or 2020, and actually reducing them by at least 60 percent by 2050.
That is why Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — no alarmist — has warned that “what we do in the next two or three years will determine our future.” And he said that two years ago.
The New York Times fronts a story this morning about the potential security implications of climate change. As the story notes, climate change has not generally been framed as a security issue:
Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding substitutes for fossil fuels, reducing emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases and furthering negotiations toward an international climate treaty — not potential security challenges.
However, as the article continues, this view is changing in the new administration:
“The sense that climate change poses security and geopolitical challenges is central to the thinking of the State Department and the climate office,” said Peter Ogden, chief of staff to Todd Stern, the State Department’s top climate negotiator.
Although military and intelligence planners have been aware of the challenge posed by climate changes for some years, the Obama administration has made it a central policy focus.
A changing climate presents a range of challenges for the military. Many of its critical installations are vulnerable to rising seas and storm surges. In Florida, Homestead Air Force Base was essentially destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and Hurricane Ivan badly damaged Naval Air Station Pensacola in 2004. Military planners are studying ways to protect the major naval stations in Norfolk, Va., and San Diego from climate-induced rising seas and severe storms.
Joe Romm writes that the ACES climate bill is due to be considered by the Senate on September 8th. There had been earlier talk about trying to get the bill passed in August, but this delay provides a window for further pressure to be put on fence-sitters.
Nate Silver has put together an excellent analysis of expected fencesitters. The bottom line – a climate bill is attainable, but some compromises will likely be necessary to make it to 60 votes:
Overall, this is a slightly better assessment than I expected. Although the model considers only 52 Senators to be more likely than not to vote for the bill, there are somewhere between 62-66 votes that are perhaps potentially in play. But Joe Mauer-like precision will be required in targeting the undecided, and further compromises would almost certainly be needed, some of them designed to placate as few as one senator. The question is how many ornaments the Democrats could place on the Christmas Tree before it starts to collapse under its own weight.
|
|