WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, urged on by President Barack Obama, announced progress on Tuesday toward quick passage of legislation to fight global warming by reducing industrial emissions of carbon dioxide.

At a midday White House press conference, Obama said the "historic" climate change bill moving through the House would "transform the way we produce and use energy in America."

With incentives to encourage utilities, manufacturers and other companies to switch from higher-polluting oil and coal to cleaner energy alternatives, Obama said the legislation would spark a "transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet."

Hours after Obama's remarks, House Democrats announced they had reached a deal on difficult agriculture issues in the legislation, clearing the way for a vote and probable passage in the chamber this week.

Representative Henry Waxman, a main proponent of the climate change bill in the House, told reporters that farmers won several of the demands they had been holding out for in exchange for supporting the climate bill.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was cautiously optimistic, telling reporters, it is "quite possible and maybe even probable" the bill will be debated on Friday and pass.

With House passage, the climate change debate would shift to the Senate, which has not yet crafted its own bill and where passage is more complicated than in the House because Republicans could use delaying tactics.

As Obama was leading the charge for climate change legislation cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050 (from 2005 levels), his administration acted on another clean energy front.

HELP FOR AUTOMAKERS

Nearly $8 billion in Energy Department loans were announced to help automakers retool plants so they can build more fuel efficient vehicles, including electric cars and autos with improved gasoline engines.

In pushing companies to reduce their carbon emissions, the climate change bill would encourage the use of alternative energy such as solar and wind, while promoting technologies to capture and store emissions from coal-burning plants.

Supporting that effort, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the government had awarded its first leases for offshore wind development off the Atlantic Ocean coasts of New Jersey and Delaware.

While large U.S. companies such as Duke Energy, Dow and Alcoa, have embraced the broad goals of the House climate bill, other industries criticized it.

The American Petroleum Institute, representing major U.S. oil companies, called the House legislation "fundamentally flawed" and said it would "cost Americans billions of dollars in higher costs, kill jobs and will not deliver the environmental benefits promised."

This week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the House Democrats' climate bill could cost households an average $175 a year in added costs, while the poor would enjoy a $40 annual benefit from rebates and other breaks. Republicans had warned of $3,100 in price increases yearly and severe job losses.

Obama's Environmental Protection Agency estimated an average household cost per year of $80-$111, or 22 cents to 30 cents a day.

Meanwhile, Republican Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, an outspoken critic of the Democratic climate change bill, asked the Justice Department to investigate whether General Motors and Chrysler can legally lobby in favor of global warming legislation because of the government bailouts of those firms.

GM is a member of the United States Climate Action Partnership, which has advocated climate legislation along the lines of the House bill.

Farm-state lawmakers already have succeeded in adding help for rural electricity companies and talks reportedly were continuing on farmer land-use issues.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Republican leader John Boehner, said that even with the new concessions to rural areas, "the core of this legislation remains the same: a job-killing tax increase that will hit every single American, especially middle class families in the heartland of America."

(By Richard Cowan; Additional reporting by Charles Abbott, Tom Doggett, Ayesha Rascoe, Kevin Krolicki, John Crawley and Jon Hurdle)

Source: UK Reuters

Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license

Protecting the world’s forests is a crucial part of the fight against climate change. Deforestation and forest degradation account for around 18% of all global greenhouse gas emissions.

We have to preserve this vital resource and find ways to reward people for looking after our forests, because the fact is that all over the world deforestation is driven by people’s need to make a living, whether it’s clearing land for subsistence farming or for intensive agriculture.

If we are to curtail deforestation, we need to find ways to finance the conservation of forests whilst generating sustainable economic development. To achieve the necessary scale, a combination of public and private sector interventions will be required.

The Forest Investment Review was commissioned by the UK's Department of International Development (DFID) and Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to explore how best to stimulate private sector investment alongside public money to reduce deforestation in the developing world. Specifically, it examines ways of achieving this through public policy, and public-private collaboration.

Forum for the Future convened a team of experts in finance and forests to assess the different areas where private sector finance can be mobilised, and they have contributed chapters to this report.

The report will help inform government policy-makers, both  in developed countries and in the developing forest nations, in the run up to the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen. We hope it will lead to urgent action - both within and outside the Copenhagen process - to combine forest conservation with sustainable economic development.

The introductory chapter
The introduction sets the scene, outlining why forests are so critical in the fight against climate change, exploring the causes of deforestation and highlighting the need for a range of different interventions, from governments and from the private sector. It looks at the need for immediate funding now, and suggests how this funding can stimulate private sector investment over time. 

The attractiveness of investments in REDD+ projects to the private sector
Chapter 1 explores what attracts each category of private investor (for example pension funds, mutual funds, venture capital funds and high net worth individuals) to invest in a project designed to reduce deforestation or forest degradation (REDD). It looks at how these different types of investor will take on projects at different stages of the business cycle and in countries with differing risk profiles. It then recommends actions to increase the involvement of each type of investor in REDD.

Exploring the characteristics of existing forestry investment vehicles
Chapter 2 looks at current investment in forests and considers the returns on investment. It explores the attitude of investors towards forests, and highlights the need for better understanding of and differentiation between the different types of forest investment, from monoculture plantations to selective logging to investment in natural forests. It then looks in more detail at the forestry funds currently being promoted to European investors.

Stimulating private capital investment to achieve REDD+
Chapter 3 focuses on the actions needed to stimulate private sector investment in the developing forest nations.  It looks at the potential for REDD+ investment and identifies the current barriers. It provides examples of successful investment in a range of REDD+ projects, including planted forests, sustainably managed forests and private investment in forest conservation. 

The potential of risk mitigation mechanisms to facilitate private sector investment in REDD+ Projects
Chapter 4 explores how governments can support private sector investment by offering insurance against risks. It looks at forestry insurance innovations and identifies how existing public sector organisations can take on an enhanced role in providing forest insurance. 

The role of innovative financing in reducing the rate of deforestation in tropical countries
Chapter 5 looks at how innovative financing mechanisms can be applied to achieve reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation, building on experience in other sectors such as health.

Appendix - linkages with other REDD initiatives
The Appendix outlines all of the initiatives that are currently in place to support Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation.  It explores the amount of funding that has currently been committed and allocated to them, and the role that each of them has been designed to play in REDD.

 Project Report summary: 

The Forest Investment Review explores how best to stimulate private sector investment alongside public money to reduce deforestation in the developing world.

Source: Forum for the future

CONTINUING its turnaround from the Bush years, the United States has pledged nearly $600 million in funding assistance from October this year to support clean-energy projects in Asia and in other parts of the world; and itself plans to spend $150 billion to propel development of renewable fuels and other new energy sources.

US Ambassador to the Philippines Kristie Kenney said, “The US understands that making clean energy a reality is essential to climate change and enhancing energy security. We also want to promote the adoption of clean-energy technology, help nations adapt to climate change and encourage sustainable land and water use.”

She was speaking at the Asia Clean Energy and Climate Week 2009 at the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in Manila last week, where she also said green energy is creating great new opportunities for the US and Asian economies as politicians realize that the best way to curb greenhouse-gas emissions without harming economic growth is through renewable sources.

Attended by more than 600 energy professionals from more than 50 countries, the forum focused on looking for clean-energy initiatives that can help Philippine and Asian businesses weather the global economic downturn and strengthen the long-term energy security in the region.

Kenney said that US President Barack Obama has made the transformation of the country into a leader in clean energy innovation a key goal of his administration.

“President Obama has made clean energy a hallmark and a centerpiece of his plans as well as addressing the global climate change and a speedy global economic recovery. Looking beyond our borders to the international arena, we understand, and our president has clearly stated, that clean energy is a priority and a reality in addressing climate change and enhancing energy security.”

She recalled that just last week, a US Senate committee approved a comprehensive energy package requiring utilities to generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind power by 2021.

Kenney said that in Asia, Washington through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) already has environmental programs under way in more than a half a dozen countries that create clean energy, mitigate climate change, save energy, conserve biodiversity and promote the sustainable use of land and water resources.

In China, Indonesia and the Philippines, the US is working with new partners to support efforts of private financing advisory networks, she added. In its first nine months, this network has identified energy projects in Asia that hold the potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 13 million tonnes.

They are also working toward the Philippine goal of full rural electrification using clean power sources. “We are committed to helping support efforts here to develop clean energy sources, to encourage private sector investment, and to build upon the efforts made by the Philippine Congress in their passage of the Renewable Energy Act and the Biofuels Act.”

Seventy percent of Asia’s energy needs are met with fossil fuels, a primary source of greenhouse gases. Asia now accounts for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The US accounts for 25 percent.

In Asia, the ADB noted that nearly 1 billion people still have no access to electricity and over 1.8 billion continue to rely on biomass and traditional stoves for cooking and heating.

In this connection, the ADB launched last week the “Energy for All Partnership” that aims to provide access to modern energy to an additional 100 million people in the Asia Pacific region by 2015.

Ursula Schaefer-Preuss, ADB vice president, said the partnership will emphasize low-cost, environment-friendly technologies and innovative financing mechanisms that will enable the poorest household to gain access to energy.

“Providing access to clean and affordable modern energy is not only vital to helping the region meet the Millennium Development Goals, but is essential in the battle against global climate change,” said Preuss.

However, environment activists seemed unsatisfied with the ADB’s environment enhancement efforts. Protests led by the Greenpeace were staged outside the Asia Clean Energy and Climate Week 2009 calling on the bank to “stop assistance strategies which fuel global warming and to spend more money on promoting clean energy technologies and act to introduce stimuli for developing climate resilient and low carbon economies.”

Greenpeace believes that the only way the ADB can become relevant as a development bank in the fight against climate change is by completely phasing out its support for coal and other climate unfriendly technologies.

“The ADB’s role must be to help developing countries redirect investments from fossil fuel to renewables, avoiding the climate destructive path of developed countries,” said Greenpeace Southeast Asia Climate and Energy Campaigner Amalie Obusan. (by Imelda V. Abaño)

Source: BusinessMirror

Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license

NEWCASTLE, AUSTRALIA — On the windswept streets of Newcastle, the world’s largest coal port and a hub of Australian heavy industry, people get nervous when asked to give their opinions on climate change.

Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal, which pumps billions of dollars into the economy, supplies more than 80 percent of the country’s electricity and keeps tens of thousands of people in their jobs — particularly in and around Newcastle. But the carbon dioxide produced from burning coal is also a major contributor to climate change, a problem the center-left Labor government has vowed to address.

Two years after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd drew worldwide applause for reversing Australia’s longstanding refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol on global warming, the government’s ambitious plan to change the way Australians use energy is facing major obstacles, raising the prospect of an early election with climate change as the central issue.

Introduced with much fanfare last year, the government’s plan aims to create a domestic replica of the emissions trading projects already operating in Europe and elsewhere.

In the simplest terms, the plan would set a cap on how much carbon dioxide could be released into the atmosphere each year and allow companies to buy and sell pollution permits designed to meet that target. It aims to cut Australian emissions by at least 5 percent of 2000 levels by 2020, or by as much as 25 percent overall if other major emitters commit to similar cuts at global climate talks in Copenhagen later this year.

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme passed easily through the Labor-controlled House of Representatives this month. But the Senate, which is controlled by conservatives and minor parties, has vowed to defeat the bill.

The government plans to introduce its legislation to the Senate on Monday.

Opponents come from all sides of the ideological spectrum. Conservatives say Australia should not commit itself to any target before the world’s biggest emitters — China and the United States — lay their cards on the table, and a successor to the Kyoto agreement, which expires in 2012, is reached. They contend the plan will drive up the cost of coal and other energy-intensive exports, allowing competitors like Indonesia to undercut Australia on world markets.

With conservatives voting as a coalition against the legislation, Labor needs the support of the pro-environment Greens party and at least two minority senators. But the Greens are also opposed, saying a 25 percent cut in emissions should be Australia’s minimum target, not its maximum.

Steve Fielding, a senator from the conservative Family First party who holds one potentially tie-breaking vote, has said he has doubts about the human links to climate change.

But Senator Christine Milne, the deputy leader of the Greens party, said, “I don’t think there is any doubt that the legislation will not be passed.” The party has been frozen out of the negotiations for its refusal to budge on the targets.

Conservatives say they will either defeat the bill outright, or stage a filibuster — an extremely rare event in Australian politics — to buy more negotiating time. If it is voted down, the government has said it will reintroduce the climate laws later this year.

Under the Australian Constitution, the government can call simultaneous elections in both the upper and lower house if the Senate rejects the same bill twice, with a three-month gap between votes.

Mr. Rudd is not due to face re-election until next year, but he could opt for a so-called double dissolution election to clarify his mandate.

A defeat in the Senate would be a setback for Mr. Rudd, a former diplomat and foreign policy wonk who has been working to raise Australia’s profile on the world stage. Some observers believe Mr. Rudd hoped to present Australia’s emissions trading proposal to climate negotiators at Copenhagen as a model for balancing the concerns of heavy industry and the environment.

But allowing the government to force an early election in both houses could backfire on the conservatives, which lost ground on the issue under the previous government of John Howard, a longtime climate change skeptic.

“I don’t think they want to face the people on an election that is fought on climate change,” said Michael Fullilove, director of the Global Issues Program at the Lowy Institute for International Policy. “The last election was fought partly on climate change, and they lost that election.”

Meanwhile, among the smokestacks and coal loaders of Newcastle, a two-hour drive north of Sydney, some residents said they worried about climate change but were wary of speaking publicly for fear of backlash from their employers.

One man, a supervisor at an aluminum plant who did not want to be identified, said that climate change was a threat but that Australia — which produces less than 2 percent of the world’s emissions — should not take drastic steps without knowing what the rest of the world would do.

Chris Beverley, a 52-year-old who works as a security guard at a power station and describes himself as a “greenie vegetarian,” said he supported the government’s plan and did not care if it cost him his job.

But, he added: “Nobody thinks like me. They’re all worried about climate change, but at the same time they want to pay the mortgage, and they want to stay in work.” (By MERAIAH FOLEY)

Source: The New York Times

Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license