Nixon's Historic "Clean Air Act"
***
"Six Good Things Nixon Did For The Environment"
***
The strongest signal yet China will act... "President Obama spoke bluntly of American responsibility for global warming and pledged that ambitious steps would be unveiled over the next year to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Obama was followed by Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli, who said that China would put forth a plan in early 2015 to reach a peak in its greenhouse gases 'as soon as possible' and scale back emissions thereafter. The announcements by leaders of the two top emitters of greenhouse gases fed a cautious optimism among many observers that after decades of limited action, the international community is moving to take meaningful steps to address climate change." Neela Banerjee and Kathleen Hennessey in the Los Angeles Times.
...but can the world count on China? "While it’s far from clear...there are at least two good reasons to hope it will. The first is that, to be frank, oppressive, centrally managed states in which leaders have little concern for public perception and where the public has little recourse to challenge policy can change the way they do business much more quickly than a liberal democracy can. The second is that China has a compelling reason to take decisive action: Its current policies are killing its citizens and making its cities unlivable, even if the government won’t publicly acknowledge it. The decision China makes, however, will have effects far beyond its own cities and its own people." Rob Garver in The Fiscal Times.
One thing missing from this whole discussion: Nixon's "Clean Air Act." "There was little discussion of one increasingly obvious observation: The planet might be in better shape today if more countries had followed the lead of the Richard Nixon administration when it and Congress enacted the pioneering Clean Air Act in 1970. World experts credit the act, which was revised in 1977 and 1990, with giving the United States an early lead in fighting air pollution. That’s reflected in health and air pollution measurements in the second decade of the 21st century." John Zarocostas in McClatchy Newspapers.
Bottom line, though: Countries everywhere are missing their emissions targets. "Worldwide greenhouse gas emissions are still rising, driven by a hunger for energy as economies grow. Even many industrialized countries are going to blow through the 2020 emissions targets they agreed to meet at earlier climate summits. The United States can claim some success....Even so, these measures are still not adequate in the view of most climate scientists and energy experts. And U.S. emissions actually rose a bit in 2013." Steven Mufson in The Washington Post.
ICYMI: China, U.S. and India are pushing up global carbon-dioxide emissions. Seth Borenstein in theAssociated Press.
Interactive: How various countries contribute to climate change. The Guardian.
One thing missing from this whole discussion: The Clean Air Act. "There was little discussion of one increasingly obvious observation: The planet might be in better shape today if more countries had followed the lead of the Richard Nixon administration when it and Congress enacted the pioneering Clean Air Act in 1970. World experts credit the act, which was revised in 1977 and 1990, with giving the United States an early lead in fighting air pollution. That’s reflected in health and air pollution measurements in the second decade of the 21st century." John Zarocostas in McClatchy Newspapers.
World leaders may get inspiration from looking at their cities. "Cities could reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that most climate scientists say drive global warming 24 percent by 2030 and 47 percent by 2050, according to a report from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change....Cities could reduce global emissions 3.7 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030 and up to 8 gigatons by 2050. For contrast, the International Energy Agency predicts emissions would hit 55 gigatons in 2050, up from 31 gigatons in 2010, if nothing is done to address them." Zack Colman in the Washington Examiner.
Obama's biggest climate victory may have nothing to do with CO2. "Back in June, Obama and Xi agreed to press the case for adding another class of chemicals to the treaty. They're coolants called hydrofluorocarbons, and you might find them in your car's air conditioner. Since there are perfectly good alternatives in many applications, getting rid of hydrofluorocarbons is diplomatically feasible. If the treaty is revised to include them, the earth in 2100 could be cooler by 1 degree Fahrenheit than it would be otherwise....The hope is that by focusing on these other gases, humans can at least put a check on rising temperatures in the near term. One degree Fahrenheit is not nearly enough to make the world safe from climate change, but at least it is something." Max Ehrenfreund in The Washington Post.
And, as we noted yesterday, from businesses. "Forty companies, among them Kellogg, L’Oréal and Nestlé, signed a declaration on Tuesday pledging to help cut tropical deforestation in half by 2020 and stop it entirely by 2030. They included several of the largest companies handling palm oil, the production of which has resulted in rampant destruction of old-growth forests....Companies are playing a larger role than at any such gathering in the past — and issuing a blizzard of promises. Several environmental groups said they were optimistic that at least some of these would be kept, but they warned that corporate action was not enough, and that climate change could not be solved without stronger steps by governments." Justin Gillis in The New York Times.
Oil companies quietly prepare for a future of carbon pricing. "for the first time, the oil majors appeared to be lifting the lid on the accounting sleights of hand that have kept the full costs of oil hidden from public view....None of this suggests that the world's petroleum giants are contemplating a move away from oil. It does, however, signal the emergence of a new era in which oil companies' financial liability for climate change is coming to be more clearly understood." Mark Schapiro and Jason Scorse in Yale Environment 360.
Explainer: Many businesses are making carbon-neutral promises. What does that actually mean? Chris Clarke in KCET.
U.S. joins other nations, groups and firms in deforestation accord. "The 'New York Declaration on Forests'...would reduce between 4.5 billion and 8.8 billion tons of greenhouse gases annually, according to the United Nations Development Program. The effort would be equal to 'removing from the road every car in the world, or not burning a trillion pounds of coal, or turning off every smokestack and tailpipe' in the U.S., the UNDP said. Crafted as a marquee initiative...the new deforestation initiative goes further than previous efforts, in the scope of participation and targets....Yet from the outset, problems in the initiative have emerged. China and India, two of the three largest carbon polluters in the world, have not signed on" Neela Banerjee in the Los Angeles Times.
Climate Change Flooding To Affect One Person In Forty By End Of Century: Another example of how climate change's impact will be unequal. "Across the globe, about one person in 40 lives in a place likely to be exposed to such flooding by the end of the century, absent significant changes. These figures are the result of a new analysis of sea levels and flood risk around the world, conducted by Climate Central....The analysis offers more evidence that the countries emitting the most carbon aren’t necessarily the ones that will bear the brunt of climate change. The United States — one of the world’s largest carbon emitters per capita and historically the overall largest emitter — ranks 34th on the list of risk of flood exposure, between India and Madagascar." Gregor Aisch, David Leonhardt and Kevin Quealy in The New York Times.
PORTER: Hidden benefits of mitigating climate change. "This time, though, advocates come armed with a trump card: All things considered, the cost of curbing carbon emissions may be considerably cheaper than earlier estimates had suggested. For all the fears that climate change mitigation would put the brakes on growth, it might actually enhance it. Whether this can tip the balance toward the global grand bargain that has eluded world leaders so many times depends on a couple of things. The first is to what extent it is true. The second is whether this is, in fact, the issue that matters most to the people making the decisions." Eduardo Porter in The New York Times.
WILLIAMS AND MARTINS: What Rousseau can tell us about challenges facing the marchers. "Recent evidence suggests consequential change in public opinion is possible, for example, in the rapid evolution of views on same-sex marriage. Challenges to established economic interests meet greater resistance, however, and action on climate change threatens disruption to those with the most power to bend public opinion toward their own wills. For Rousseau, it is the sad fate of failing republics that justice is commonly 'bent to the interest of the most powerful.' As such, any democratic solution to the problems introduced by climate change requires a reinvigorated commitment to the egalitarian foundations of democracy itself." David Lay Williams and Brad Mapes-Martins in The Washington Post.
FLAVELLE: Your island sinking? Go to Canada. "There's no obligation under international law to provide asylum to those whose homes are rendered unlivable by rising sea levels, crop failure, severe storms or other consequences of climate change. The 1951 Geneva Convention recognizes as refugees only those who leave their home country out of fear of persecution; anyone who leaves for another reason is a migrant. Refugees are entitled to settlement in other countries; migrants aren’t. Climate change challenges the logic of that distinction, spurring calls to update the 1951 convention or create new agreements. Those efforts may eventually lead somewhere, but there's nothing stopping wealthy countries from acting on their own."Christopher Flavelle in Bloomberg View.
No comments:
Post a Comment