Dr. Elizabeth Holland, Senior Scientist at NCAR, to Address the Science of Climate Change on January 18 at Sturm College of Law; Talk Open to Public

Dr. Elizabeth Holland, Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), will talk about the science of climate change to all students, faculty, and others interested in the topic in conjunction with Adjunct Professor Anita Halvorssen's Global Climate Change Law & Policy course at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, January 18 in room 180.

Dr. Holland leads the Biogeoscience Program (BGS) at NCAR. Dr. Holland and the other lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), along with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore , were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2007.

Is the U.S. Moving Closer to a Carbon Constrained Economy?

Despite an old American foreign policy tradition of telling other countries how to run their own affairs and the necessity of different sides of an issue acting in a civil manner, politics in America is not exactly a "no contact" sport. In fact, one battle now raging in Washington, D.C., is how greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced in the U.S. And there is going to be plenty of contact as Washington considers the various available alternatives.

In some ways, it is rather fitting that the U.S. now faces the issue of what to do and how to do it. For years, the Europeans, who have in place the world's only major emissions trading reduction program, have practically begged the U.S. to do something. Even China is making noises about doing something (although it is worth noting that China does a lot of "noise making" in Beijing, but often the actual implementation gets lost out in the provinces). But, alas, nothing has been forthcoming from America, although the U.S. may now be on the precipice of doing something. The question now is will that "something" be through regulation or through legislation? No one is quite sure today. But the method of reducing emissions makes a big different to the various affected constituencies.

On one hand, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that would reduce carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system (as well as several other concepts such as instituting a national renewable energy standard). The U.S. House, as reported in this blog in June, has passed a cap-and-trade bill, albeit one punched full of holes for all sorts of special interests. A similar measure is awaiting action in the U.S. Senate, although the powerful "status quo" lobbies (e.g., many big unions, the fossil fuel interests, etc.) are assisting their friends in the Senate (generally those who reap huge political support from these groups) "understand" their side of the matter. Among the friends of the status quo are such luminaries as the two Democratic Senators from West Virginia, the two Republicans from Wyoming, and a vast array of other senators and representatives.

Businesses and policy wonks are watching closely what sort of legislative (if any) measure comes out because of the likely inclusion of a cap-and-trade scheme where regulated businesses can sell and buy emissions allowances on an as-needed basis. (This approach is called a market-based approach, which is contrasted to a regulatory-based command and control approach.)

On the other hand, the Obama Administration's EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has recently defined greenhouse gas emissions as dangerous to public health, thus setting the stage for the EPA to regulate these emissions. In this context, the federal Clean Air Act will provide the statutory basis for reducing emissions. With no small amount of boasting in her voice, Ms. Jackson announced that this decision "cements 2009's place in history as the year when the U.S. government began seriously addressing the challenges of greenhouse gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean energy reform." However, if the U.S. follows this approach (rather than the legislative one), cap-and-trade will not be part of the program.

Where do various interests and observers line up?

Many U.S. electric utility executives would prefer a legislative approach that includes cap-and-trade. For example, David Ratcliffe, chief executive of the large electricity generator Southern Company, said last week, "A carbon bill [legislation] would give more clarity to what you need to do and when." ("EPA's Carbon Proposal Riles Industries," The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 8, 2009). Frank Prager, vice president for environmental policy at Xcel Energy, has also voiced support for a cap and trade solution, particularly with respect to Xcel's renewable energy initiatives. "From our perspective, a flexible market-based program would do a much better job in allowing us to bring renewable energy on-line," Mr. Prager told National Public Radio recently ("Companies Weigh Climate Laws Over EPA Rules," Morning Edition, Dec. 17, 2009).

Across the Atlantic, the EU appears to be situated somewhere between relief that the U.S. will do something and disappointment that it is not enough. For instance, the Financial Times' editorial page, which is often a proxy for European views, wrote recently, "The prospect of EPA action will focus minds in Congress and make passage of cap-and-trade more likely" ("A Changed Climate for Copenhagen," Dec. 8, 2009). However, the FT editorial also made this sage observation: "The EPA's new posture is...a mixed blessing. As the administration knows, an old-fashioned regulatory approach to carbon mitigation is certain to be far more costly than cap-and-trade...since it lacks a market-based mechanism to apportion the curbs efficiently."

If the FT editorial page can be seen as a proxy for European interests, the Wall Street Journal editorial and op-ed pages can nearly always to be counted on to boost their perception of U.S. interests. Recently Kimberly Strassel, who writes the "Potomac Watch" op-ed column for the Journal, panned the EPA's move towards regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Strassel wrote, "From the start, the Obama team has wielded the EPA action as a club, warning Congress that if it did not come up with cap-and-trade legislation the EPA would act on its own -- and in a far more blunt fashion than Congress preferred" ("The EPA's Carbon Bomb Fizzles," Dec. 11, 2009). Then Ms. Strassel went on to offer an interesting -- and perhaps prescient -- observation: "Bottom line: At least some congressional Democrats view [the EPA's announcement] as breathing room, a further reason to not tackle a killer issue in the run-up to next year's election...[Mr. Obama's] real problem is getting Congress to act, and his EPA move may have just made that job harder."

And to make things even more curisor, in a nod to Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" (or "Alice in Washington" as the case may be), Alaska Republican U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has announced her intention to introduce a resolution aimed at overturning the EPA's finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health. According to Sen. Murkowski, "I remain committed to reducing emissions through a policy that will protect our environment and strengthen our economy, but EPA's backdoor climate regulations achieve neither of those goals. EPA regulation must be taken off the table so that we can focus on more responsible approaches to dealing with global climate change." What are the Senator's ideas for "more responsible approaches?" It is not entirely clear. But she went on to say, "Upon introduction, a disapproval resolution is referred to the committee of jurisdiction, which in this case will be the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. If the committee does not favorably report the resolution within 20 calendar days, it may be discharged upon petition by 30 Senators. Once a disapproval resolution is placed on the Senate calendar, it is then subject to expedited consideration on the Senate floor, and not subject to filibuster."

The debate can and will go on and on. For now all we know for sure is that the U.S. will do something. If the Congress does not act, then the administration -- through its EPA administrator -- will regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The stage is now set.

Special Section About Climate Change in The Economist

Those of you preparing to follow the events at the UN Climate Change Conference, which begins in Copenhagen today, may want to take a close look at a special report in this week's Economist magazine (Dec. 5-11).

"Getting warmer: A special report on climate change and the carbon economy," contains a great deal of information and analysis about where the world finds itself as the Copenhagen discussions begin. To be sure, from an editorial standpoint The Economist makes clear that it thinks that climate change is taking place and that it is caused (in large measure) by humans. But on the other hand, no one (at least no reasonable person) is going to effectively make the case that somehow The Economist is a tool of environmental campaigners. In fact, many people in the UK (where it is based) see The Economist as a reliable (and somewhat stuffy) voice for business interests.

In any case, it is well worth having this special report in your library if climate change is a matter of interest.

And speaking of Copenhagen, in the next few weeks this blog will include postings from Anita Halvorssen, a DU adjunct professor, who is attending the meetings. Stay tuned for Dr. Halvorssen's commentary. Beginning in January 2010, Dr. Halvorssen will be teaching "Global Climate Change" at DU.

Two U.S. Federal Appellate Courts "Revive" Mass Tort Claims Based on Impact of Greenhouse Gases

Two recent U.S. Court of Appeals decisions -- one in the Second Circuit and the other in the Fifth Circuit -- suggest "...a willingness on the part of the appellate ranks of judiciary...to allow the causes and effects of climate change to be decided in the courts, a step that may place even greater pressure on Congress to enact climate change legislation and that would preempt such actions," according to a new Fulbright Briefing published by the law firm of Fulbright & Jaworksi LLP.

As the Fulbright Briefing explains, "[T]he underpinnings of [the two decisions] pose the potential for increased climate change litigation nationwide." Nevertheless, the briefing points out that plaintiffs in these actions face significant hurdles related to standing.

I think most would agree that trying individual law suits is no way to craft any sort of reasonable climate change policy, but in the absence of any such policy at the federal level these sort of efforts are likely to continue.

LLM Student Spends Summer Working for Korea Green Foundation's Climate Change Center

Ji Yeon Seo, a prospective December 2009 LLM graduate, had an amazing experience this past summer working for a South Korean NGO focusing on climate change.

Ms. Seo, who studied law in South Korea before coming to DU in 2008 to pursue her LLM degree, worked for the Climate Change Center, which is part of the country's most well known environmental NGO Korea Green Foundation.

I'll let Ms. Seo tell her story...

This past summer, I had an internship in Korea for five weeks. It was a really great opportunity to explore how Korean society deals with climate change, the most urgent environmental challenge that the world faces.

On the first day of my internship a graduation ceremony of the 3rd Climate Change Leadership Program was held. About 50 people had completed their course work and received certificates from the Climate Change Leadership Program. It was a 10-week course, where leading scholars and experts from Korea and abroad provided a high quality education about climate change. Most participants were members of the National Assembly, ministers of the government, professors, CEOs of companies and state-sponsored institutions, and legal experts. To date, about 180 people have completed this program and are now working as climate leaders in their fields. On September, the 4th Program began.

On my third day, the opening ceremony of the climate change exhibition was held. The Korea Green Foundation held the exhibition in collaboration with American Museum of Natural History in New York. This is the most ambitious project of this year aimed at educating people, especially children and students, and to make people aware of the seriousness of climate change. I also worked at the Science Museum, where the exhibition is being held. I enjoyed this experience, interacting with others who were visiting the exhibition, instead of staying in an office. So far, more than 170,000 people have visited the exhibition.

I was also actively involved in the Strategic Programme Fund during my internship. The UK Department of Foreign Affairs provided funding to educate Korean business leaders. The Climate Change Center is the main body carrying out the project. We introduced the program to business leaders and encouraged them to join this program. On June 25, the opening ceremony of the SPF was held and the British Ambassador to South Korea delivered the keynote speech in Korean. (I was so impressed and his Korean was so beautiful). The first meeting will be 14 September. There will be four forums per year (in total eight meetings over two years), where climate experts and government officials will discuss climate change in depth. We have published the first monthly-newsletters in May for the participants and my article about U.S. efforts to combat climate change (the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) was reported in the newsletter.

Finally, I had a really great opportunity to attend the 2009 Global Environmental Forum in Songdo, Korea. It was held August 11-12, and the theme was Global Environmental Outlook and Low-Carbon Green Growth toward Sustainable Development in the 21th Century. Many climate experts provided their insight and advice.

The most impressive aspect of my internship involved the people I worked with. They care passionately about the natural environment. For instance, they do not use paper cups, plastic plates and wooden chopsticks; they use public transportation to travel to work; they use environment-friendly and energy-saving products even though those products are not cheap. They are on the very front line in the battle over climate change and many other environmental problems that we face. I was very impressed with their efforts, and as a consequence I have tried to change my attitude and life-style.

In closing, I am so lucky to have had the chance to meet these people and work together with them this past summer. It was a really great opportunity to explore how Korean society is dealing with climate change, which is the most urgent environmental challenge the world faces.

Ji Yeon Yeon Seo
September 9, 2009

American Coalition for Clean Coal Technology: One of the Major Players as the Senate Considers an Energy Bill

One group to follow as the U.S. Senate debate about a cap-and-trade bill heats up this summer and fall is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which sponsors the America'sPower.org website.

Members of the coalition include power companies and other coal-related interests. The coalition's goal is to "advance the development and deployment of advanced clean coal technologies that will produce electricity with near zero emissions."

Joe Lucas, the senior vice president for communications, recently provided an overview about the coalition's position vis-a-vis the carbon debate:

With the Senate poised to consider a climate change bill, the usual talking points from environmental public-interest groups have begun to rear their ugly heads.

As usual during these debates, there are those who predict that any movement to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will mean the end of the use of coal to generate electricity.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

If anything, it means the need to increase investments in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is even stronger than ever.

Let’s be perfectly clear about the facts: coal currently provides about 50 percent of America’s electricity. And the United States has more coal than any other fuel. A quarter of all the known coal in the entire world is here in America. In fact, we’ve got more coal than the entire Middle East has oil.

Moreover, key groups – like the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and others – have said that you CANNOT achieve a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale WITHOUT successful deployment of carbon capture and storage. In fact, authors of the House bill (Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey) clearly noted that coal use will continue to grow both here in the U.S. (on a regional basis) and around the world.

So those who predict that reducing CO2 will drive coal out of the market (much like they said reducing SO2 would do the same thing 30 years ago, although coal use has since tripled even as emissions have been dramatically reduced) are once again … whistling past the graveyard.

In fact, that is where I think they are missing the boat (and why some of these groups were critical of the House bill). Their goal is to remove low-cost energy options like coal from the fuel mix … and they can’t see that such a policy would not only increase energy costs and leave America more dependent on imported energy, it would also deter meeting the key goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale. That is just misguided and bad policy.

For those of you who question if carbon capture and storage is a viable option – consider this, North America has enough storage capacity at our current rate of production for more than 900 years worth of carbon dioxide. This storage capacity is located deep underground across the continent in varying types of geological formations – including unmineable coal seams and oil and gas reservoirs.

To break it down, the U.S. and Canada are the source of 3.8 billion tons of CO2 each year, but we have storage space for 3.5 trillion tons. Divide that out and we have, in effect, a 921-year reservoir of carbon dioxide storage.

That data comes straight from the U.S. Department of Energy. Take a look for yourself.

It’s time to work together on a solution — one that is right below our feet.

You can beat that the coalition's members and leadership will be working overtime to press their views with senators and their staffs.

Accounting and Sustainability

If there is one profession that has dived headlong into sustainability it is the accounting profession. While that might seem a bit hard to believe, the accounting profession -- it seems to me -- has often been perceptive about expanding its own business horizons beyond just numbers.

No professional organization within the accounting profession has been more involved in sustainability than the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), which is based in London but has members worldwide. On a quarterly basis, ACCA publishes Accounting and Sustainability, and the most recent issue (33) is now available.

The headlines in this issue provide a glimpse of the types of topics the newsletter covers:

• Human capital management (HCM) reporting research
  
• Discussion paper: 'Water: the next carbon?'
  
• ACCA publishes third in the series of member briefing papers on sustainability
  
• ACCA Australia publishes research on ASX50 corporate governance disclosures
  

Typical of the kinds of information that one will find in the newsletter are links to reports such as "Carbon Accounting: Too Little to Late?"

ACCA has also launched Accounting and Climate Change, another quarterly newsletter.  The first issue can be accessed here.

You can set up an e-mail subscription to these publications.

Addressing Climate Change A Key Priority as Sweden Prepares for European Union Presidency

Combatting climate change will be one of Sweden's two priorities during its July 1 to December 31 presidency of the European Union.

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who spoke yesterday in Brussels about his government's upcoming presidency, emphasized the need for the world to take more aggressive actions to combat climate change. Mr. Reinfeldt said:

"As I stand here today, the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets continue to melt and sea levels continue to rise. We are experiencing more extreme weather conditions, with severe storms and droughts. And while this is happening, emission levels have not even started to decline.

"On the contrary. According to the IPCC, between 1970 and 2004 greenhouse gas emissions increased by 70 per cent. There is no more time to lose, if we do not want our children to suffer even more dramatic consequences of climate change.

"Over the last year I have often been told that, in the middle of deep economic crisis, countries cannot afford to spend money on "green dreams". I would argue the contrary. They cannot afford to keep their current costly energy sources.

"Let me take Ukraine as an example, and a particularly interesting one given recent signs of an impending gas crisis. Today Ukraine uses energy about three times less efficiently than EU countries on average. Studies demonstrate that if Ukraine's energy efficiency could reach the level of countries like Slovenia and the Czech Republic, Ukraine would come close to being independent of gas imports from Russia.

"So in addition to the benefit of having cleaner air, improved health and reduced risk of natural disasters, many countries would even improve their public finances by addressing climate change and their energy mixes. I guess that is what you call a 'win-win' situation.

"Studies by McKinsey show the same thing. Global greenhouse gas emissions could be cut by about 40 per cent by 2030 at a cost of less than half a per cent of global GDP. I will say it again: the cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of action.
I say this knowing that, at the same time, many developing countries will have difficulties making the initial investments. The EU has therefore stated its readiness to take on its fair share in the framework of an agreement in Copenhagen.

"The Swedish Presidency - and I personally - will do our utmost to continue to work out the details of such financing arrangements as well as ways of transferring technology, to enable an agreement on global emissions reductions in Copenhagen.

"We know that substantial mitigation efforts are needed in all countries if we are to keep the increase in global average temperature below two degrees compared to pre-industrial levels. Developed countries must take the lead in reducing emissions and reach a mid-term target of cutting emissions by 25 to 40 per cent.

"And the EU has done its homework. We have promised to cut emissions by 30 per cent by 2020 in the framework of an international agreement. The energy and climate package agreed last December is the most ambitious mitigation policy the world has ever seen."

In addition, Mr. Reinfeldt went a step farther and suggested, "We now need to initiate discussions on how economic instruments can best be utilised in climate policy. I believe tools such as a carbon tax and emissions trading, if designed well, can play a key role in addressing climate problems."

Easier said than done if you ask me. Carbon taxes, while considered in many circles a more efficient way to discourage greenhouse gas emissions, are anathema in the U.S. So this is effectively a non-starter in Washington, D.C. (and probably various corners of Europe as well including the U.K.).

Nevertheless, the Swedish PM seems encouraged by his view of the challenges ahead and particularly as they are reflected in the actions of the Obama Aministration: "I'm pleased to say that we are receiving encouraging signals from President Obama and his administration, who have profoundly improved the discussions on this issue."

But has the PM inadvertently put the kiss of death on EU-U.S. cooperation on this matter? In many parts of the U.S., the American presidency is not exactly supposed to embrace European proposals. It makes you look like a "citizen of the world" as opposed to only a "citizen of America."

It's no surprise that President Obama has proclaimed himself a citizen of the world. That's what liberal Democrats do. But so has one other fairly recent president: none other than Ronald Reagan...

"A Blueprint for a Safer Planet"

Lord Nicholas Stern, climate change advisor to the U.K. government and former chief economist at the World Bank, has just published, "A Blueprint for a Safer Planet: How to Manage Climate Change and Create a New Era of Progress and Prosperity."

Lord Stern is best known as the author of The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, a 2006 700-page assessment of the economic impact of climate change.  

In his new book, Lord Stern argues, "When we emit greenhouse gases we damage the prospects for others and, unless appropriate policy is in place, we do not bear the costs of the damage.  Markets then fail in the sense that their main co-ordinating mechanism -- prices -- give the wrong signals."

A review in the Financial Times ("A timely prophecy," April 4, 2009), says, "Stern's prescription for a low-carbon future includes putting a price on carbon, investing in renewable energy, and providing funding for poor countries to keep their forests intact...Other sections, such as the one on changes to current forms of carbon financing, will be strictly for the nerds."

The reviewer, Fiona Harvey, the FT's environment correspondent, goes on to say, "If this year's crucial climate change negotiations are to be successful, this book will be required reading for all participants.  Perhaps the experience of bailing out the banks will persuade them that an early market intervention for the climate may avoid an even more disastrous bust in future."

As of today, the book is available on Amazon's U.K. website, but not on its U.S. website.

European Commission Publishes White Paper on EU-Related Climate Change Adaptation Strategies

The European Commission has published a white paper, "Adapting to climate change: Towards a European framework for action."

The white paper, which proposes various policy-related measures, reflects the European Commission's view that, "The earth's climate is changing and the impacts are already being felt in Europe and across the world." The white paper presents "the framework for adaptation measures and policies to reduce the European Union's vulnerability to the impacts of climate change."

The European Commission, in presenting the white paper, said, "Adapting to climate change will be integrated into all EU policies and will feature prominently in the Union's external policies to assist those countries most affected."

European Commissioner for the Environment Stavros Dimas said, "The seriousness of climate change is becoming greater and more disturbing withi each passing year...It is therefore essential that we start work now with governments, business, and communities to develop a comprehensive adaptation strategy for the EU and to ensure that adaptation is integrated into key EU policies."

Despite the EU's leadership on climate change (e.g., adoption of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme), not everyone in the "green lobby" is satisfied with the steps the EU has taken. Tony Long, director of the European Policy Office for the WWF, said, "We are particularly concerned for a potential water crisis across Europe, whereby southern countries will suffer from reduced supplies and other regions will face increased extreme weather events and floods. Why isn't action taken now? How much longer do we have to wait?"

Chinese Climate Change Conference Accepts Paper Authored by DU Graduate Student

A paper about climate change written by Elizabeth DiNello, a May 2009 LLM degree candidate in the Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Graduate Program, has been accepted for an international conference to be held in Hong Kong.

Ms. DiNello will present “Climbing the Great Wall: How the Interplay Between China and the United States Will Affect Mitigation in a Kyoto Successor Treaty” at the conference “China and Global Climate Change: Reconciling International Fairness and Protection of the Atmospheric Commons” on June 18-19.

In Today's News...

Several interesting articles about the environment and natural resources:

"Insurers must disclose climate-change exposure," The Wall Street Journal, March 18, 2009.

"Reasons to be cheerful in a downturn: The large amount of money that is about to find its way into the green economy," Financial Times, March 16, 2009.