01
April 2009 - Washington DC, United States
— There’s still a long way to go, but the
draft energy and climate bill unveiled yesterday
in the US Congress gives some idea of what
American climate policy may look like in
the coming years. The bill provides for
strong long-term targets, efficiency legislation,
a cap-and-trade system, and sets the goal
that 25 per cent of US electricity must
come from renewable energy by 2025.
Time to break out the
champagne? Not quite...
Good news, real progress
The proposed efficiency standards are good
and, as the experience of Japan and California
shows, they work. By directing the EPA to
establish regulation for refrigeration chemicals,
cars, aviation and shipping, the bill could
bring to many sectors the effective environmental
governance they have previously lacked.
Minimum portfolio standards
for electricity markets are another proven
success that can now be taken up nationally.
One of the most successful examples is the
standard in Texas, a state now at the heart
of the US wind industry. A long-term target
of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 83
per cent by 2050 is nothing to be sniffed
at either, and brings the US in line with
the long-term ambitions of many progressive
nations.
In creating a range
of effective policy tools the bill will
give the US government the power it needs
to take strong action on global warming.
The question is, will it?
Not fast enough
Sadly, the short term targets aren’t so
good. When climate negotiators talk about
cuts they mean cuts relative to 11000, the
year specified in the Kyoto Treaty. Congressman
Henry Waxman is talking about cuts relative
to 2005, when emissions were much higher.
If you convert the bill’s domestic emissions
cuts of 20 per cent by 2020 into ‘11000’
emissions you get a cut of around 7 or 8
per cent.
These limited cuts are
made even weaker by the provision in the
bill for two billion tons of offsets. At
first read, what this means in practice
is that the US fossil fuel industry could
continue to pump out CO2, unabated, for
the next 20 years, and buy its way out of
saving the climate by buying cheaper, lower-quality
emissions reductions from elsewhere, instead
of taking responsibility for reducing its
own pollution.
That doesn’t sound like
progress to us.
Real emissions reductions
better than offsets
The latest science is clear. The world needs
to cut emissions far more quickly. To stop
global warming, the world must end emissions
from deforestation and industry. The developed
world as a whole needs to achieve cuts of
at least 40 per cent relative to 11000 levels
by 2020. Years of environmental neglect
under George Bush mean that US emissions
have skyrocketed, but even an achievable
overall US commitment of 25 per cent - with
at least 12 per cent domestic cuts in fossil
fuel use - would help put the developed
world on the path to climate victory.
Paying the polluter
The bill offers up to 10 billion dollars
to fund Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
This is just a way to extend a business-as-usual
approach where the polluter gets paid rather
than punished — and paid, no less, with
money taken from the American taxpayer.
Where do we go from
here?
Climate champions in Congress are working
to enact a climate change plan by the end
of this year, ahead of the climate negotiations
taking place in Copenhagen. To do that,
the bill must first secure the support of
the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
then the House of Representatives. Meanwhile,
the Senate needs to adopt its own version
of the bill and pass it. Then the two bills
will need to be reconciled.
That leaves plenty of
scope for the bill to be changed, and here
are the big changes that need to be made.
Increase the targets
and ensure that at least 12 per cent of
the emissions cuts come through reductions
in domestic fossil fuel use
Drop the funding for CCS
Auction pollution permits, ensuring polluters
pay and that revenues are used for climate
and public benefit
If these improvements are made, President
Obama can arrive in Copenhagen with a real
opportunity to forge the global deal that
ends global warming.
+ More
HP, Lenovo and Dell
still on the toxic stuff
International — We're
giving HP, Lenovo and Dell a penalty point
in our updated Guide to Greener Electronics,
for breaking their promises to phase-out
toxic chemicals in 2009. Of the world's
five top PC makers, only Apple is truly
kicking the habit. Meanwhile Philips has
jumped from 15th to 4th place in the list
of electronics companies who are cleaning
up their act.
HP, Lenovo and Dell
had promised to eliminate vinyl plastic
(PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs)
from their products by the end of 2009.
Now they've told us that they won't make
it this year.
The phase-out of toxic
substances is an urgent priority to help
tackle the growing tide of e-waste. Still,
producers only go green when they feel public
and consumer pressure to do so. That's why
we campaign.
Dell produces a desktop,
a notebook and several models of monitors
that have a reduced use of PVC and BFRs,
and a few monitor models that are free of
these substances.
Lenovo has two models
available that are PVC and BFR-free. HP
is trailing behind, and has yet to bring
out models with even a reduced use of PVC
and BFRs.
While HP and Dell have
yet to set a new timeline for completely
eliminating these substances from all their
products, Lenovo has delayed its deadline
to the end of 2010.
Two-step detox for companies:
Come clean, go green
The Guide to Greener Electronics, now in
its 11th update, shows which electronics
companies are investing to meet their commitments
to remove toxic substances from their products,
tackle climate change, and introduce better
recycling and take-back policies. When electronics
companies pay for the collection (take-back)
and recycling of their own products, they
have the added incentive to develop cleaner,
more recyclable products.
Apple can do it
Apple doesn't have certified PVC-free power
cords yet, but in every other way its products
are now PVC and BFR free. If Apple can do
it, then so should the other leading PC
manufacturers.
We believe all electronics
companies should have at least one toxic-free
line of products on the market by the end
of the year. Acer currently remains committed
to phasing out PVC and BFRs in 2009.
Philips springing forward
The Guide to Greener Electronics star this
time goes to Philips -- and the 47,000 people
who sent emails to the company!
The Dutch electronics
giant reacted to our e-waste campaign with
a dramatic about-turn on recycling and take-back.
It's jumped from 15th to 4th place in one
go. Following public pressure, the company
has significantly improved its position
on taking financial responsibility for the
recycling of its products when they become
e-waste.
Philips still needs
to implement a system to make it work, but
we're delighted with the direction it's
heading in.
Individual producer
responsibility is the gift that keeps giving
Recycling costs are influenced by the amount
of toxic chemicals present and how easy
products are to recycle.
This "pay for the
mess you make" approach is called "Individual
producer responsibility", and it's
crucial to the greener development of the
electronics industry.
Climate Change on the
agenda
Despite an overall slump in scores in the
toxics categories, companies are starting
to improve their scores on energy criteria.
IT is a key sector in the fight against
climate change and could enable emissions
reductions of 15 percent of business-as-usual
by 2020.
Samsung joins Philips
in publically demonstrating support for
global steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and to tackle climate change. Dell and Nokia
join HP and Philips in making commitments
to substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions
from their own operations.
Several companies are
now increasing their use of renewable energy,
with Nokia already sourcing a quarter of
its electricity use from renewables.
Climate challenge to
IT execs
Exposing electronics companies to public
pressure is helping to green the industry.
They could do much more, not only to clean
up their own act, but to help the planet
avoid runaway climate change.
Introducing the IT Climate
Leadership Challenge. The aim this year
is simply to get influential IT execs to
lobby key governments for a strong, planet-saving
agreement at the December 2009 climate change
summit in Copenhagen.
Right now we can't see
anybody in the IT industry using their access
to politicians -- and their influence as
major employers and wealth creators -- to
lobby for a strong Copenhagen deal. Meanwhile
dirty industries are lobbying like there's
no tomorrow. So we'll soon launch an international
"who's who" and "who's doing
what" of top IT execs we want to see
leading the way.
