Countries are more likely than not to miss a deadline set by the Copenhagen Accord for specifying their 2020 emissions targets, according to an analyst at carbon market consulting firm Orbeo.
By Jan. 31, developed nations must set their greenhouse gas emissions targets for 2020, and developing nations must outline their actions to prevent emissions.
Thanks to a recession-based fall in fuel demand, U.S. government mandates requiring the use of 15 billion gallons of biofuels by 2012 could face the reality that there is nowhere to use all that fuel.
Two years ago, while crafting its biofuels legislation, Congress did not account for fuel demands remaining or falling — a progression begun by the recession that could continue thanks to improved fuel efficiency. This trend, and the fact that ethanol can constitute only 10 percent of normal gasoline blends, suggests the country is unlikely to use all the biofuels Congress ordered.
Some European nations have suggested they will not offer more than is necessary to strike a global climate pact during the summit at Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.
The European Union’s environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, said last week that he did not support a “blank check” for impoverished countries that are asking for hundreds of billions of dollars in aid in order to combat global warming.
European Commission President José Manuel Barroso suggested fast-growing economies like China and India should take on a greater role in covering the costs of becoming more energy efficient.
Big cities feel “invisible” in the climate debate in Congress, even though they face some of the biggest threats from human-sharpened natural hazards.
Washington’s omission is troubling to metropolitan areas like New York City and Chicago because they are the dominant source of carbon dioxide in their regions and will face the earliest impacts. They are also racing to understand climate change, while confronting its causes and trying to adapt to its downsides.
Yet Congress is looking to state capitals — often located in smaller cities — for decisions that focus on major urban centers with mounting populations, several city officials say.
Large electric utilities that rely heavily on coal poured money into re-election campaigns as the House shaped and passed landmark climate legislation, a bill that helps those businesses partly sidestep its toughest provisions.
Employee-run committees for American Electric Power Co. Inc., Duke Energy Corp. and Southern Co. gave $165,000 to 70 House members in April, May and June. They sprinkled money among senators, too, contributing $46,500 to 18 Senate re-election campaigns.
The money went heavily to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that amended and voted on the bill before the final floor vote. Contributions also went to lawmakers from states where the utilities have plants.
By: Jean-Marie MacabreyEfforts by countries worldwide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security are in trouble if nothing is done to check the energy gobbled by both information and communication technologies and consumer electronics.
This warning came in a report published yesterday in Paris by the International Energy Agency. The study warns that energy used by computers and consumer electronics will not only double by 2022, but increase threefold by 2030.
IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said in a press release accompanying the report that the increase was equivalent to the current combined total residential electricity consumption of the United States and Japan.
Democratic leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee plan to solicit comments this month on a draft energy and global warming bill as they take aim at their goal of marking up that legislation by Memorial Day.
“We’ll have to develop a committee draft probably in March and have hearings on it and talk to members and get reactions to it,” Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) told reporters today. “Because we need the input from the stakeholders, both from the environmental side and the business side. And all the differences that might entail.”
The European Union will impose tariffs on biodiesel produced in the United States to protect E.U. producers from American subsidies and price undercutting, people familiar with the matter said.
The tariffs are meant to punish U.S. manufacturers of biodiesel for receiving government aid and then selling the fuel in the bloc below cost.
In 2007, the European Union imported about €700 million ($901 million) worth of biodiesel from the United States. The trade protection, which is due by March 13, will last four to six months and could be prolonged for five years.
Pennsylvania is known for coal mines and muscle. Its industry had a tough black-and-blue streak. But now the state is aggressively trying to lighten up. The question is, can it make solar energy its new steel?
State officials are pouring $180 million into the solar effort, hoping to reverse deepening job losses by encouraging thousands of new installations on residential rooftops and by covering fields with sprawling sunlit arrays.
The initiative is poised to unleash its money in April. As a result, Pennsylvania is expected to surge from nowhere into a pack of states leading a national push toward a brighter solar scene.
Canada’s conservative government, now considered this continent’s climate villain among many environmentalists, is trying to spruce up its image to appeal to the environmentally minded Obama administration by publicizing a continental plan to reduce carbon.
But critics are concerned that the ambitious proposal is designed to camouflage what they believe is Canada’s true motive: angling for softer carbon penalties from the United States while expanding the emission-heavy production of oil from its tar sands.
Canada began bracing for seismic political shifts in the United States this fall, after it became clear that Washington would favor much stricter restrictions on greenhouse gases.
