COP15 Day 2

To make sense of all the information coming out of the COP15 confence in Copenhagen, Flow will be running a series of daily blog entries to keep you up-to-date on the latest news from the largest climate change event in the world. Today is day two of the 12-day conference.

Certainly today’s most talked-about Copenhagen moment was US President Barack Obama’s announcement that greenhouse gases would now be considered a health hazard, giving the Environmental Protection Agency the power to to regulate industrial emissions. Given the difficulties of negotiating domestic GHG regulation (let alone on the global scale that the Copenhagen delegates are tackling), the fact that a single body in one of the world’s largest two emitters has the power to drastically affect industrial policy is a major coup. But while the US is certainly one of the most looked-at participants in the conference, it joins 191 other countries in the conference’s meetings.

Among others, today’s meeting topics include “China and the world: Solving climate change through practical, on-the-ground collaboration,” “Trade liberalisation and its role in technology diffusion: A look at the renewable energy, buildings” and “Developing Country Implementation Strategies and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)”. Every day of the confernece also includes a variety of side events, including an update from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on its renewable energy reports and a four-part series on low carbon scenarios in Denmark, France, Germany and the UK. Renault’s Zero Emission Transportation – Taking a Step Towards the Future in Copenhagen, will be taking place in parallel with the conference today, highlighting zero-emission vehicles.

COP15 Day 3

Less sunny future for solar energy industry

The United States saw a jump in the use of solar energy by about 9 percent in 2008, but will those numbers continue to rise as the recession hits hard or will this economy be a “pane” for solar energy?

In the past two years, solar panel capacity rose an impressive 78% and solar heater installations increased about 50 percent in the United States, but reports indicate that the first quarter of 2009 has hit the solar industry hard. Sales have slumped and solar companies are feeling the pinch.  

Enter the U.S. government, which is trying to guarantee loans for solar and other renewable energy projects. President Obama has pledged to double renewable energy production in three years. But more than tax credits and laws are needed in the United States.

Solar Energy Industries Association President Rhone Resch says that electricity providers also need to be legislated to generate a certain percentage of renewable energy. 

In Canada, the government is also making solar workforce development a priority. Solar energy seems to be boosting the economy by providing jobs and it is estimated that the industry’s labour force will increase by more than 100% over the next three years. 

The government is working with the Association of Canadian Community Colleges on developing a national curriculum for designers and installers of solar energy systems as well as the Electricity Sector Council and the Canadian Solar Industries Association.

Governments must take action in order for solar to successfully shine through this economic slump.

Fueling efficiency

Canadian owners of cars and light trucks can expect to see an improvement in their cars’ fuel efficiency as the federal government moves into lock step with the United States.

So says Environment Minister Jim Prentice as he announced that the government is dramatically changing how it sets efficiency standards. 

Those standards are currently governed by the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, which was passed by Parliament just 17 months ago and is administered by Transport Canada. The jurisdiction is going to be shifted to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in time for the 2011 model year.

When the U.S. introduced the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency in the 1970s, the fuel consumption standard for passenger cars was 18 miles per gallon. It was increased to 27.5mpg in 1989. U.S. President Obama recently announced plans to increase it to 30.2mpg, when combined with light trucks, is expected to yield an average fuel economy of 27.3mpg.

“It is important to note that it is just a first step,” Prentice said, noting that Congress has asked the U.S. administration to work toward a combined average of 35mpg by the 2020 model year. “The new U.S. fuel economy standards will have an impact across the North American automotive industry, especially Canada,” he said. Canada produces 15-20 per cent of North America’s vehicles and some 80 per cent are exported to the U.S.

The core of the new approach will by mandatory carbon dioxide emissions standards which will be consistent with U.S. standards. The predominant greenhouse gas emitted from vehicles, CO2 is directly related to fuel consumption.

Even though the Canadian standard will be expressed as grams of CO2 per kilometre, they will be aligned with the U.S. fuel economy standards and Prentice said the government will ensure ongoing year-by-year alignment.

“If North Americans wait for better economic times before taking the painful but necessary steps to produce greener vehicles, the rest of the world won’t wait.  Someone else will move ahead to build the greener car. As we look for ways to revitalize the North American car industry, we need to build vehicles that have better fuel efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions.”

The case for a world energy market

Canada’s federal government has stated clearly that developing a Canada/U.S. partnership on energy and the environment is a priority. This idea finds support across the spectrum of opinion in Canada, creating common ground between environmental and energy interests. But what’s in it for the new U.S. administration?

Assuring the U.S. of our reliability as a supplier of energy is good. But this isn’t new and could easily be construed as an attempt by Canada to lock in its market access for natural gas, oil, electricity, and uranium – commodities for which we are already the number one supplier to the U.S. Signalling our willingness to partner on environmental management is also positive, but from a U.S. perspective it adds complexity to an extremely difficult domestic challenge.

Rather than focussing on our bilateral relationship, Canada’s strongest leverage on U.S. policy may in fact come from contributing to a broader international agenda where Canada and U.S. interests converge. Prime Minister Mulroney succeeded well with Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush by following such a course. More recently, our military mission in Afghanistan has gained us far more credit in Washington than any other Canadian initiative in the past decade.

Energy creates such multilateral opportunities. Canada can partner with the U.S. in promoting a stable world energy trade, investment and carbon management system that builds on energy markets rather than getting in their way.

The mantra in the U.S. is energy independence. It is a powerful sound byte yet impossible to achieve. North America will be dependent on imported oil as far into the future as we can see. Although the continent is virtually self-sufficient in natural gas, we also have access to world gas markets through liquefied natural gas (LNG) re-gasification capacity equivalent to over 15% of our domestic use. Even ethanol might be better sourced in places like Brazil if the objective were to find the most economic and environmentally preferable supplies. With our effectively functioning markets and flexible pipeline and storage systems, Canada and the U.S. can fulfil their energy needs strategically from either domestic sources or world markets. And of course we will be increasingly tied into a world carbon management system.

Clearly, Canada and the U.S. have a substantial and growing interest in a well-functioning world energy market. There is potential for cooperation in several areas, including energy markets, the yet-to-be defined carbon market, investment rules, northern development and technology. Canada has a great deal to contribute to the conversation if we decide to step up.

Canada has earned its place at this table. We have learned the hard lessons of the National Energy Program – how bad policy can wreak havoc on energy markets and sow interregional discord. We went through the tough political fight over energy in the free trade agreement. Many voices claimed in 1988 that the FTA energy chapter was a sellout of our sovereignty and our energy security. Twenty years on we have enjoyed unprecedented wealth creation and energy stability for producers and customers based on open markets complemented by North American trade and investment rules. We are a free market champion with the scars to prove it.

Meanwhile much of the world has lost faith in markets. The reaction to the recent financial meltdown (markets don’t work, let’s regulate) is piled on top of a longer trend away from open energy markets in non-OECD countries. Price management, state control of investment and energy assets and geopolitical market manipulation have become prevalent. Soon we may add ill-conceived carbon management systems to this witch’s brew.

The recurring natural gas price dispute between Russia and Ukraine, and its impact on European energy security, is a window on a world without solid trade and investment agreements. At a time when we can least afford such instability, the threat of this contagion of national self-interest is clear.

The United States and Canada have a fundamental interest in building a stable world energy market, not Fortress North America. President Obama’s visit to Canada is an ideal opportunity to begin forging an integrated approach that shapes international energy trade and investment rules, and develops mechanisms for cooperation on energy and carbon management that are necessary for those markets to work.

Pierre Alvarez, Chair, Canadian Centre for Energy Information,
Michael Cleland, President & CEO, Canadian Gas Association
Roger Gibbins, President, Canada West Foundation.

This is the first commentary in a three part series on national energy security. The series is based on a paper prepared for the recent North Pacific Energy Security Conference.

 

Recently, the Globe and Mail published an article by Canadian Centre for Energy Information Chair, Pierre Alvarez. The piece is based on a White Paper Mr. Alvarez wrote with Michael Cleland, President of the Canadian Gas Association and Roger Gibbins, President of Canada West Foundation. Another article by the same authors was published in the Edmonton Journal on the day President Obama visited Canada.

Rising to the energy challenge

Obama’s green inauguration

Barack Obama’s election is all about colour – just not of the skin.  

President-elect Obama is doing everything he can to ensure people associate him with the colour green.  21 years after President George Bush (the first one) said he wanted to be known as “the environmental president,” America’s next head of state is using his inauguration to do just that.  

From walking to his swearing-in ceremony on a recycled carpet, to collecting manure from mounted police (the horses, not the policemen), to distributing recycling bins around metropolitan Washington, DC, an attempt is being made to render the ceremonies as environmentally-friendly as possible.  

One of the most important (and for Beltway insiders, most-anticipated) events of a presidential inauguration is the ball.  Well, technically that’s inaccurate – there’s almost always more than one ball.  At least two of Obama’s have been designated “green.”  

The Green Inaugural ball, Maximum Celebration, Minimum Impact, is hosted by Planet Green and R & B star Wyclef Jean, is designed to have a minimal impact. Located a block from a Metro station, the Green Inaugural Ball will be serving organic and local food and lit by low-wattage LEDs. 

Al Gore, who has some enviro-credibility of his own, is also hosting a Green Ball at the Smithsonian.   Fittingly, Gore’s event is perhaps more cerebral – invitees include more than two dozen ecological and environmental coalitions, all encouraged to “celebrate a commitment to growing the New Green Economy.”

It’s often been said that inaugurations set the tone for the presidency. President George W. Bush’s first inauguration was marred by frigid weather and loud protesters. A few dour presidents even cancelled everything other than the swearing-in ceremony itself.  

Obama is trying very hard to paint his nascent administration in shades of green.  Time will tell whether this is prescient or just another gesture.

Obama to “green” the White House

Ask not what your country can do, but how you can reduce your own carbon footprint?

The (slightly paraphrased) words of another popular young president is exactly the advice President-Elect Barack Obama is taking to heart. While the original Kennedy speech was in the context of the Cold War, Obama is taking on a different struggle – that of climate change, and environmentalism.

The best way to lead is by example, and that’s exactly what Obama intends to do. Part of his economic stimulus plan, Obama intends to overhaul the federal buildings to make them energy-efficient. 

Beyond upgrading insulation and solar panels, Obama made it clear that the basic principles of energy conservation will apply to America’s First Family too. Obama told Barbara Walters in an exclusive television interview: “each of us has a role to play in not being wasteful when it comes to energy.”  

Obama specifically mentioned the utility of turning off the lights when away from home, and unplugging cell phone chargers when not in use. Obama even went so far as to sit down with the White House’s chief usher to prepare an energy-use evaluation for the White House.  

Is this a shallow move, or a rearguard action against future smear campaigns? Maybe. But one thing is clear: Obama is setting an example, rather than just giving a lecture.  

Do as I say, not as I do?  That never lasts for long. It’s time for change.

Revenge of the nerds?

Three of U.S. president-elect Barack Obama’s cabinet picks – Nobel laureate physicist Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, former New Jersey environmental commissioner Lisa Jackson as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and former EPA Administrator Carol Browner as the president’s “climate and energy czarina” – could be characterized as the “revenge of the nerds”.

An early advocate of a scientific approach to climate change, Chu has run Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy facility operated by the University of California, since August 2004. During that time, he has spearheaded a multidisciplinary mission to evolve the lab into a world leader in alternative and renewable energy research, among other things.

His Nobel Prize was shared in 1977, while he was still at AT&T Bell Laboratories, with fellow American William D. Phillips and Frenchman Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, for their work on ways of cooling and trapping atoms. Chu joined Stanford University in the heart of Silicon Valley in 1987 as a professor in 1987 and remained there until the Berkeley appointment.

A key player in the National Academies of Science ongoing America’s Energy Future project, Chu also co-chaired the InterAcademy Council’s report Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future and has published more than 220 papers. His appointment is in sharp contrast to the retired military officers and energy-sector executives who have been Energy Secretary in previous U.S. cabinets.

His environmental credentials can be summed up by remarks at a National Clean Energy Summit. He dismissed as a “myth” the notion that modern society has all the technologies needed to solve the energy challenge. “I think political will is absolutely necessary,” he said. “But we need new technologies to transform the landscape.”

Jackson, a New Orleans native, led New Jersey’s progressive efforts to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and Browner, currently Obama’s transition team adviser on energy and environmental issues, headed the EPA during the Bill Clinton presidency and will coordinate policy from the White House as an influential link between Chu and Jackson.

Each has an impressive track record which could give Obama unprecedented leverage as he tries to make good on his key campaign commitment to a $500-billion economic stimulus plan he hopes to put in place shortly after his inauguration next month.