Tag Archives: china

Are You a True Political Junkie? A Wee Test.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I’m often amazed at the incredible memories that true political junkies have for trivial stuff that happened well over a decade ago. I was just reading a Kevin Williamson item over at The Corner, and he was noting that (a) some police organizations were apparently referring to President Obama’s new restrictions on transfer of military equipment as a “ban,” and (b) that lefties were attacking this as fear-mongering, since it wasn’t a ban, just a restriction on how the federal government plans to spend its own money.

Where’s he going with this, I wondered. I didn’t have to wait long to find out:

Well….

Am I the only one who remembers the so-called federal ban on stem-cell research enacted by the Bush administration? That was a ban that was not, in fact, a ban at all, or even a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but a restriction on federal funding for research using newly created lines of embryonic stem cells. When the Fraternal Order of Police complains that police departments cannot use federal funds the way they did before, the Left insists that the word “ban” is inappropriate, that the complaints amount to “fear-mongering.” But Mother Jones wrote of a “Stem Cell Research Ban” under Bush, CBS News reported “Obama Ends Stem Cell Research Ban,” Wired wrote of a “Bush stem cell ban,” U.S. News and World Report wrote of “Bush’s Stem Cell Research Ban,” etc.

A funding restriction is not a ban; it isn’t now—but it wasn’t then, either. It is too much to expect even a modicum of consistency from our feckless, lollygagging media, which is mainly composed of people who were too thick for law school and too lazy to sell real estate, and certainly not from the intellectually dishonest Democratic operatives within the media (Hello, Mr. Stephanopoulos!). But we should always keep that dishonesty in mind.

I guess I take a much more easygoing attitude toward this stuff, especially when we’re talking about headlines. Heds are almost never entirely accurate thanks to space constraints, and using the word ban instead of ban on federal funding of new stem cell lines seems pretty much inevitable. As long as the hed is reasonably close to reality and a more accurate explanation is put in the first paragraph or two, I can’t get too excited.

And if it was something that happened back in 2001? I’d be racking my brains to remember what happened and whether I should still give a damn. I guess that’s what marks me as not really a true political junkie. I don’t hold grudges against the press quite long enough.

Read the article – 

Are You a True Political Junkie? A Wee Test.

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are You a True Political Junkie? A Wee Test.

Here’s One Way the Developing World Totally Has America Beat

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

China is by far the world’s biggest investor in clean energy technologies like solar and wind. Last year, its clean energy spending hit a record $83 billion, a 39 percent jump from the year before, and more than twice what is spent in the United States.

Although America and most other G20 nations are moving toward a clean energy overhaul, its the developing world where you’ll find the most explosive growth: When you add in emerging markets like Brazil, India, and South Africa, clean energy investment in developing countries totaled $131 billion in 2014, only six percent less than the combined total for developed countries. It’s the closest that gap has ever been, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF):

BNEF

That gap will soon close, and then start growing in the other direction, according to a new report from the Pew Trust. Based on financial data from BNEF, the report’s authors project that more than $7 trillion will be invested in new energy systems by 2030, two-thirds of it in developing countries. (Pew’s analysis doesn’t put China in that category.) Roughly $5 trillion of it will be clean energy investment.

It’s no mystery why developing countries are positioning themselves to win this race. For one, they need the electricity. As it stands, more than 1.3 billion people, mostly in Asia, India, and sub-Saharan Africa, live without access to reliable modern service:

Pew

If you want to bring electricity to places without a power grid, renewables have lots of advantages. For one, it’s far cheaper and faster to build a solar or wind farm than a coal or gas-fired generation plant. And renewables can be built locally, on a small scale, eliminating the need for long-distance transmission lines. Consider what happened with cellphones: Mobile technology became cheap and ubiquitous before many African nations had landline networks, so people just “leapfrogged” straight to wireless.

The same phenomenon is afoot in the energy market, says Todd Moss, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, who was not involved with the Pew report. “I don’t have any doubt that over the next two generations we’ll see colossal investments in the energy sector in many African countries” and in India.

Compare the maps above and below. You’ll note a strong connection between so-called energy poverty (above) and future power demand (below), in Africa especially. This is hardly surprising, but only in the past few years has renewable energy has become affordable and accessible enough to get the transformation rolling.

Pew

Energy poverty isn’t the only factor driving clean energy’s growth. In Bulgaria or Ukraine, both of which Pew identified as key places for energy investment in the developing world, the growth is driven by a desire to wrest control from foreign fossil fuel suppliers, i.e. Russia’s Gazprom. That’s according to Phyllis Cuttino, a clean energy analyst who authored the Pew report. “These countries want to have sources they don’t have to import, and they want to stimulate economic growth,” she said.

The report also identified Kenya, Peru, Taiwan, Morocco, Vietnam, Pakistan, and the Philippines as top attractors of clean energy investment. For now, anyway: The lineup may change from year to year in response to domestic policies (mandates, subsidies, etc.). And Moss said that the report underestimates the role African countries like Nigeria and Ethiopia will play. Still, many developing countries are in for internal political battles over clean energy, of the sort that we’ve seen, and are still fighting, in the United States.

African utility companies also often struggle with bad credit histories, Moss said, which can make it difficult to secure loans from the World Bank or other international institutions. “The key to unlocking investment in the power sector is getting a long-term, credit-worthy deal,” he said.

Regardless of which countries come out ahead, we’re almost certain to see far more money invested in clean energy than in fossil fuels over the next few decades. In the charts below, solar in particular is projected to grow massively by 2030, while new fossil fuel installations will shrink to less than half of the total.

Pew

So where does this leave United States? There’s a huge opportunity for clean energy entrepreneurs to expand into developing countries, Cuttino said. Indeed, according to Commerce Department stats, six of our top 10 destinations for clean energy exports are developing countries. President Barack Obama has made electrification in Africa a signature foreign policy initiative of his second term. That move in itself sends an important signal about the difference between clean energy here and in the developing world. Here the benefits are primarily environmental. There, clean energy is seen as a key step to alleviating poverty.

Continue reading here:  

Here’s One Way the Developing World Totally Has America Beat

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LeapFrog, LG, ONA, Pines, Radius, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s One Way the Developing World Totally Has America Beat

Marco Rubio Is a Moron

Mother Jones

Here’s the latest from Florida wunderkind Marco Rubio:

Marco Rubio Struggles With Question on Iraq War

Under a barrage of questions from Chris Wallace of Fox News, Mr. Rubio repeatedly said “it was not a mistake” for President George W. Bush to order the invasion based on the intelligence he had at the time. But Mr. Rubio grew defensive as Mr. Wallace pressed him to say flatly whether he now believed the war was a mistake. Mr. Rubio chose instead to criticize the questions themselves, saying that in “the real world” presidents have to make decisions based on evidence presented to them at the time.

“It’s not a mistake — I still say it was not a mistake because the president was presented with intelligence that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it was governed by a man who had committed atrocities in the past with weapons of mass destruction,” Mr. Rubio said on “Fox News Sunday.”

A moment later, as Mr. Wallace tried to pin him down on his view, Mr. Rubio began to reply, “Based on what we know now, I think everyone agrees — ” but Mr. Wallace cut him off before he finished the thought.

“So was it a mistake now?” Mr. Wallace asked.

“I don’t understand the question you’re asking,” Mr. Rubio said.

The truth is that I don’t care about Rubio’s actual position on the Iraq War. The guy’s trying to run on a platform of more-hawkish-than-thou, and that’s pretty much all I need to know. Most of the time he sounds like a ten-year-old trying to sound tough in front of the older kids.

But I’m seriously beginning to wonder if he has a 3-digit IQ. After Jeb Bush’s weeklong debacle trying to answer this question, every Republican candidate ought to have their own answer figured out. And not just figured out: by now their answers ought to poll-tested, cut down into nice little soundbites, and so smoothly delivered you’d never even know this was a tricky issue in the first place.

But no. Rubio sounded like this question came as a total surprise. Seriously, Marco? This guy does not sound like he’s ready for prime time.

View original: 

Marco Rubio Is a Moron

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Marco Rubio Is a Moron

Bonus Friday Cat Blogging – 15 May 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It’s been a traumatic week for Hilbert. He and Hopper were upstairs chasing each other around when he made the fateful decision to climb onto the bathroom counter and then leap to the top of the shower door. Why? Who knows. But he did it, and immediately discovered that the shower door railing is only about an inch wide. So he tumbled into the bathtub, and was then faced with an even bigger problem: my sister keeps the shower doors closed when they’re not in use.

A good deal of piteous meowing ensued until Karen investigated and found poor Hilbert trapped in the bathtub. She let him out—after taking a picture, of course—and reports that he spent the rest of the evening cuddled on her lap recovering from the indignity of it all.

Karen now leaves the door open and says that the bathtub has quickly become the final resting place for a succession of cat toys. This is probably Hopper’s doing. Either that or Hilbert got over his trauma mighty fast.

Link: 

Bonus Friday Cat Blogging – 15 May 2015

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bonus Friday Cat Blogging – 15 May 2015

Did Barack Obama Just Lose to Elizabeth Warren?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In Washington, as in much of life, it often seems that social evolution doesn’t progress much beyond high school. So it was hardly surprising that in the media the battle over the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal was often depicted as a spat between the BMOC of the party (President Barack Obama) and the queen of the alt crowd (Sen. Elizabeth Warren). Yet the vote on Tuesday afternoon in the Senate that blocked fast-track legislation—which would allow the president to bring the TPP to an up-or-down floor vote with no amendments—was a sign that Obama’s problems are not just with Warren, the Massachusetts populist and progressive darling. Every member of his own party but one voted to stymie a vote on the fast-track bill Obama has been pushing. And after the vote, Sen. Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat who often is mindful of the interests of Manhattan-based financiers, was at the mic denouncing the fast-track measure and demanding a trade deal that does right by American workers—a jab at Obama, who has passionately asserted the TPP is good for US workers.

It turns out that Warren was not holding a marginal position, as the White House had contended. The president was.

Continue Reading »

Taken from: 

Did Barack Obama Just Lose to Elizabeth Warren?

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, The Atlantic, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did Barack Obama Just Lose to Elizabeth Warren?

The EPA Faces a Crucial Choice

back

The EPA Faces a Crucial Choice

Posted 8 May 2015 in

National

The oil industry and renewable fuel industry agree on one thing: the EPA has a big choice to make when it comes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

The choice comes down to this — reward the oil industry for refusing to fulfill its obligations under the policy, or get the RFS back on track by following the spirit and intent of the law.

What’s at stake here is whether or not to maintain the “Consumer Choice Provision” of the RFS. Congress included the Consumer Choice Provision to make more options available to American drivers and encourage the oil industry to invest in infrastructure for renewable fuel.

But the oil industry wants to reverse course on the Consumer Choice Provision.

Instead of arriving at a rule that is based on the renewable fuel industry’s ability to supply fuel to consumers as Congress intended, oil companies would have the EPA block competition from renewable fuel on the oil industry’s behalf.

The EPA has two choices.

Choosing the oil industry would mean more imported oil from hostile foreign regions, more pollution and spills, and fewer American jobs. It would also mean protecting the oil monopoly on our fuel supply and even higher gas prices.

Choosing America’s rural economies and innovation would mean supporting over 852,000 American jobs, primarily in rural communities that are just getting back on their feet, and creating thousands of new, permanent American jobs. It would mean keeping a promise to investors in advanced biofuels — the world’s cleanest motor fuels — instead of sending that investment to China.

Since the RFS first went into effect in 2005, America’s renewable fuel production has more than tripled — driving down our dependence on foreign oil to the lowest level in 25 years.

All of that progress was threatened when EPA caved to oil industry lobbyists and put out a proposed rule that accomplished exactly what oil companies intended: changing the rules midstream, creating show-stopping market uncertainty, and freezing about $13.7 billion in investment in advanced biofuels.

Now is the time to restore market certainty, keep our promise to investors, and choose America’s rural economies and clean energy innovators over the oil industry’s demands.

EPA, your choice is clear. Support a strong Renewable Fuel Standard.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
Read More:

The EPA Faces a Crucial Choice

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The EPA Faces a Crucial Choice

EPA Announcement Will Have Consequences for the Future of Advanced Biofuels

back

EPA Announcement Will Have Consequences for the Future of Advanced Biofuels

Posted 4 May 2015 in

National

Next month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will release the renewable fuel volumes for 2014, 2015, and 2016 — an important step in determining the future of renewable fuel in our country.

In the decade since the passage of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), companies have invested billions to make the United States the world leader in biofuels production. As a result, renewable fuel production has tripled, oil imports are at their lowest level in decades, and our environmental, energy and national security have improved dramatically.

As President Obama and the EPA prepare to make this announcement, they should understand the consequences that their decision will have.

Uncertainty Has Discouraged Investment
According to a new report from the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the EPA’s delays in issuing timely rules have caused a $13.7 billion shortfall in investment for cellulosic and new advanced technologies. Since 2009, the advanced biofuel industry has invested billions of dollars to build demonstration and commercial-scale biorefineries, but the EPA’s failure to release the 2013 and 2014 renewable fuel volumes on time has created uncertainty that has frozen investment.

Opponents’ Predictions Have Proven Wrong
Over the years, opponents of the Renewable Fuel Standard have predicted that renewable fuels would cause gasoline prices to skyrocket. The truth? Since the RFS was enacted in August 2005, the inflation-adjusted price of gasoline has fallen by roughly 50 cents per gallon.

Since oil companies control the retail infrastructure through which fuel is distributed, the RFS has been crucial to ensuring that consumers have a choice at the pump. In turn, the renewable fuel industry has delivered significant economic, environmental, and national security benefits for our nation.

It’s not too late to put the Renewable Fuel Standard back on track, and make sure that renewable fuel has a strong future in the United States.

Will the next generation of renewable fuel be made in the United States or China? It’s up to you, Mr. President.

Read the full white paper: Estimating Chilled Investment for Advanced Biofuels Due to RFS Uncertainty

Read the new letter from biofuels industry leaders to President Obama.

Fuels America News & Stories

Fuels
Original link:  

EPA Announcement Will Have Consequences for the Future of Advanced Biofuels

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, oven, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on EPA Announcement Will Have Consequences for the Future of Advanced Biofuels

Coal Is Dying and It’s Never Coming Back

Mother Jones

Coal, the No. 1 cause of climate change, is dying. Last year saw a record number of coal plant retirements in the United States, and a study last week from Duke University found that since 2008, the coal industry shed nearly 50,000 jobs, while natural gas and renewable energy added four times that number. Even China, which produces and consumes more coal than the rest of the world put together, is expected to hit peak coal use within a decade, in order to meet its promise to President Barack Obama to reduce its carbon emissions starting in 2030.

According to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), this is all the fault of President Barack Obama’s “war on coal”—specifically the administration’s new limits for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, which probably will force many power companies to burn less coal. If there is a war, McConnell has long been the field marshal of the defending army. His latest maneuver came last month when he called on state lawmakers to simply ignore the administration’s new rules, in order to resist Obama’s “attack on the middle class.”

His logic, apparently, is that if Kentucky can stave off Obama long enough, the coal industry still has a glorious future ahead. That logic is fundamentally flawed. While Obama’s tenure will probably speed up the country’s transition to cleaner energy, the scales had already tipped against coal long before he took office. Kentucky’s coal production peaked in 1990, and coal industry employment peaked all the way back in the 1920s. The scales won’t tip back after he leaves. The “war on coal” narrative isn’t simply misleading, it also distracts from the very real problem of how to prepare coal mining communities and energy consumers (i.e., everyone) for an approaching future in which coal is demoted to a bit role after a century at center stage.

That’s the conclusion of a sweeping new account of the coal industry, Coal Wars, authored by leading energy analyst Richard Martin. The book dives deep into a simple truth: As long as we’re still burning coal for the majority of our energy, all the solar panels, electric cars, and vegetarian diets in the world won’t do a thing to stop global warming. Saving the planet starts with getting off coal.

The good news, Martin reports, is that transition is already underway, regardless of stonewalling by congressional Republicans, and with or without Obama’s new regulations. Martin documents evidence of coal’s decline from the mountain villages of Kentucky to the open pit mines of Wyoming, and from lavish industry parties in Shanghai to boardrooms in Germany. Everywhere he looks, market forces (for instance, natural gas made cheap by the fracking boom), technological advances, and environmental laws are conspiring to favor cleaner forms of energy over coal. At the same time, Martin writes, more and more financial institutions and private investors are starting to factor climate change into their investment decisions, which “would be a death blow that no EPA regulation could equal.”

Whether the transition will happen fast enough to limit the damage of climate change is a different story. China still gets nearly three-quarters of its energy from coal. The United States, while substantially reducing its own coal consumption in recent years, still has huge amounts of coal, especially in the West, that can be profitably mined and shipped overseas. Many billions of dollars have been sunk into mines, power plants, shipping terminals, and other infrastructure that can’t simply be shut down overnight, especially when all that stuff forms the backbone of a basic commodity like electricity.

Still, for coal, there is no resurgence on the horizon. “There’s no question which way the curve is headed, and it is down,” Martin tells Climate Desk.

Much less clear than the fate of coal is what will happen in the countless communities, from the American Southeast to northern China, that have long depended on coal to put food on the table. Martin has managed to locate dozens of compelling personal narratives that show the human face of a debate that is too often reduced—by environmentalists as much as by the coal industry—to numbers and yawn-inducing energy wonkery. These include the head of a small coal mining company in Kentucky who was forced to sell off the business he inherited from his father and lay off workers who were also friends and neighbors. The manager of a coal town coffee shop in Colorado is also facing closure. In China, self-contained cities are built around coal mines, but young people there are unable to get work and have no other employment opportunities.

The environmental imperative to get off coal is obvious, and even if you think climate change is a hoax, basic economics are already driving the coal industry to contract. But so far, according to Martin, the United States has done a terrible job of helping coal industry workers and their families find life after coal.

There are many guilty parties here, including coal barons like Don Blankenship (who is currently facing charges in federal court for flagrant safety violations) and profit-hungry utility company execs who are keen to squash competition from solar and wind energy. But Martin saves his most damning critiques for leaders like McConnell who are hung up on pointless political squabbling rather than finding innovative ways to revitalize former coal economies.

“The presence of the coal industry has kept these communities in a state of dependence, and not allowed them to develop a real economy beyond coal,” Martin says. “Whether we pine for the days of these jobs or not, they’re not coming back. We have to get beyond this state of dependency.”

See the original article here: 

Coal Is Dying and It’s Never Coming Back

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Coal Is Dying and It’s Never Coming Back

Obama makes climate pledge to world, Republicans snipe in background

Obama makes climate pledge to world, Republicans snipe in background

By on 31 Mar 2015commentsShare

The Obama administration today unveiled its proposal for how it intends to reduce climate-changing pollutants under a U.N. agreement. Its contents are not particularly bold or surprising, but at least it’s on time! The U.N. had asked countries for their proposals by today and the vast majority haven’t met the deadline.

The proposal reaffirms that, by 2025, the U.S. will cut greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels. That’s pretty much just what was expected — the same commitment the U.S. made in its bilateral deal with China last fall.

A number of green groups praised the Obama administration for staying on track and playing a leading role in putting together a U.N. climate deal, which is supposed to be finalized this December in Paris. In a statement, the Sierra Club’s Michael Brune lauded the administration “for following through on the ambitious commitment made last November with China by pledging clear, significant action to tackle the climate crisis.” Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute called the proposal a “serious and achievable commitment” that shows the U.S. is “ready to lead by example.”

But most groups’ enthusiasm was lukewarm, and some were underwhelmed. Greenpeace said that the plan “begins to treat the wound, but does not stop the bleeding. As the world’s second largest emitter, the US must strengthen its commitment to climate solutions before Paris to ensure an agreement that immediately spurs the necessary transition away from fossil fuels and towards 100 percent renewable energy.”

Though major players like the U.S., the E.U., and Russia did submit their plans for cutting emissions by the U.N.’s soft deadline of March 31, most of the world’s nations are dragging their feet. The U.N. hopes that by December 2015, 190 governments will have outlined their proposals to curb emissions, and will be ready to sign an agreement pledging to put their plans into action. China and India, the largest and third-largest climate polluters, may not unveil their commitments before this summer, though we likely already know what will be in China’s — the same commitments it made in its pact with the U.S. last year.

The U.S. actually meeting its commitments is, of course, dependent on the president’s climate initiatives surviving this Congress’s attempts to gut them, and, possibly, the efforts of future presidents who have different feelings about the need to tackle climate change. Already, Republicans are gearing up to attack the U.N. process. “Considering that two-thirds of the U.S. federal government hasn’t even signed off on the Clean Power Plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it, our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned in a statement.

It would be quite a feather in McConnell’s cap if his Senate derailed 190 countries’ attempt to avert a global catastrophe. If he’s beginning to think about his legacy, he might not have a bigger chance to shape the future than this.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

This article: 

Obama makes climate pledge to world, Republicans snipe in background

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama makes climate pledge to world, Republicans snipe in background

Mexico just shamed the rest of the world with its climate plan

Mexico just shamed the rest of the world with its climate plan

By on 30 Mar 2015commentsShare

Mexico is the first developing country to formally make its climate action pledge ahead of U.N. negotiations to be held in Paris later this year. And its plan is actually pretty ambitious, analysts say.

Mexico on Friday said it intends to have its greenhouse gas emissions peak by 2026 and then begin to decline. It will cut its “black carbon” emissions — particulate pollution generated by burning fuels like wood and diesel — in half by 2030. The net effect is that, by 2030, Mexico’s emissions will be 25 percent lower than if the country had continued without making any changes, and by 2050, emissions will be 50 percent below 2000 levels. The country is also working on reducing its “carbon intensity” — the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of GDP.

“That would make Mexico’s announcement a bit more ambitious than what is expected from China, but not as ambitious as what the U.S. will offer,” InsideClimate News’s John Cushman notes, referring to the November 2014 agreement between the Obama administration and China. Developing countries like China and Mexico are expected to allow their emissions to keep rising for a few years while their economies grow and their people rise out of poverty, whereas rich nations like the U.S., which have done most of the polluting in the past, are expected to start cutting emissions right away.

“While the devil is in the details, Mexico’s plan to peak its emissions by 2026 is particularly encouraging and should inspire others to follow a similar course,” said Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute, a think tank that’s tracking progress toward a 2015 climate deal.

As part of the process of working toward a climate pact, 190 countries are each submitting their own plan for how they intend to voluntarily reduce emissions (in wonk speak, the plans are known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs). In the years ahead, the U.N. will monitor each country’s progress toward realizing its plan, though the international body won’t have much power to penalize countries that don’t meet their goals. Developing countries and the European Union had pushed for a binding treaty that would punish nations that don’t curb emissions as agreed, but Obama would never be able to get that sort of treaty by the current U.S. Senate, so, in order to keep the U.S. in the game, the U.N. is now working toward a nonbinding agreement.

The U.S. is expected to submit its plan by the U.N.’s deadline, the end of the first quarter of 2015 (that’s tomorrow!), but other nations are not on track to do so. Still, not everyone is dragging their feet: The E.U., Switzerland, and Norway have outlined their INDCs, representing more than 10 percent of global emissions. And once the U.S. submits its plan, a third of world emissions will be accounted for.

Analysts tracking the process say many countries’ delays are probably at least partially strategic: If a country gets its commitment in at the last minute, the world has less of a chance to ask it to commit more. China and India, the world’s first and third biggest polluters, plan to submit their INDCs this summer.

Mexico’s contribution — and China’s anticipated contribution, based on last November’s joint announcement with America — set the reductions for the developing world on a fairly ambitious path. That’s encouraging, given that differences between rich and poor nations have scuttled past attempts at a climate deal. But some developing countries (India, notably) have been difficult to pin down on their likely commitments.

It will take commitments from all of the world’s major polluters, rich and poor alike, to put us on something even resembling a sustainable path — and with so many INDCs as yet undeclared, it’s impossible to determine if 2015 will be the year that the U.N. finally pulls off the climate deal its been attempting for decades. And even under a best-case scenario, diplomats have repeatedly warned that any deal likely won’t be enough to keep global warming under 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold scientists say we must meet to fend off the worst climate impacts.

Still, gotta start somewhere, and Mexico’s announcement is an encouraging step. Olé!

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Source:  

Mexico just shamed the rest of the world with its climate plan

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, InsideClimate News, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mexico just shamed the rest of the world with its climate plan