Topic: climate change

Felipe Calderón, Former President of Mexico, Joins WRI Board of Directors

Michael Oko — Tue, 21 May 2013 14:42:44 -0400

The World Resources Institute announced that Felipe Calderón, the former President of Mexico, has joined its Board of Directors.

“President Calderón is a globally recognized world leader, who has shown enormous dedication in responding to environmental, energy and climate challenges,” said Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO, World Resources Institute. “He brings a deep understanding of the issues and has the ability to mobilize greater global action for a more sustainable planet. We look forward to working with President Calderón to push for the urgent solutions around sustainability that we so desperately need.”

Calderón served as President of Mexico from 2006 to 2012, during which time he made sustainability a core value across all of government. One example was the priority given to the generation of electricity from renewable sources, which rose to 27 percent of the total generated. In addition he put in place a set of energy-saving programs such as appliance substitutions and the biggest energy-saving bulb exchange program in the world.

Furthermore, he more than doubled the volume of wastewater treated in Mexico.

“We are living in a critical time, with immense environmental and development challenges before us,” Calderón said. “WRI, with its global reputation for excellence in research and impact, is playing an essential role in finding solutions. I am delighted to be working with WRI to create a more sustainable world for all.”

Thanks to an innovative program of paying for environmental services to mainly indigenous communities, the rate of deforestation in Mexico fell by more than half while at the same time helping some of the poorest communities in the country.

Calderón also played a vital leadership role in the success of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP16) in Cancún, which led to the Cancún Accord that changed the conversation and laid the groundwork for real agreements. For the first time ever developing countries committed to real emissions targets.

“I am delighted to welcome President Calderón to our board,” said Jim Harmon, Chairman of WRI’s Board of Directors. “President Calderón is a highly respected and influential figure on the international stage. His leadership can help guide WRI’s global strategy as we deepen our engagement in emerging markets and the new frontiers of sustainability. We are excited to leverage President Calderón’s political experience and global access to advance our mission.”

Calderón previously served as Secretary of Energy from 2003 to 2004, during the administration of President Vicente Fox.

Calderón is currently the inaugural Angelopoulos Global Public Leaders Fellow at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

A complete list of WRI’s current board members is available here.

The German Fast-Start Finance Contribution

Sarah Parsons — Thu, 09 May 2013 16:27:15 -0400

Summary

Industrialized countries have repeatedly committed to provide new and additional finance to help developing countries transition to low-carbon and climate-resilient growth. This assessment addresses German efforts to provide “fast start finance” (FSF) as a contribution to the pledge by developed countries to provide USD 30 billion from 2010 to 2012 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is part of a series of studies scrutinizing how developed countries are defining, delivering, and reporting FSF.

Germany has increased climate finance in recent years and met its self-defined FSF pledge. According to the government’s FSF reporting, from 2010-2012 Germany provided a total of EUR 1.29 billion (approximately USD 1.7 billion) for climate action in developing countries that was counted towards FSF. Germany has therefore slightly exceeded its FSF pledge for the period 2010-2012. Even before the start of the FSF period, Germany was already providing significant funding for climate change-related activities in developing countries, particularly for renewable energy and energy efficiency. It therefore started from a relatively high climate finance baseline. Moreover, FSF is only a part of what the German government provides in climate-related finance for developing countries. Overall, Germany has increased delivery of international climate finance when compared to climate-related spending prior to the FSF period: In 2011, Germany committed about EUR 1.8 billion in total for climate finance, an increase from EUR 470 million in 2005.

Germany’s FSF is roughly evenly distributed be¬tween bilateral and multilateral cooperation. Out of the EUR 1.29 billion, EUR 585 million was channelled through multilateral funds. The largest single channel is the World Bank-administered Climate Technology Fund (CTF), which received EUR 375 million from Germany from 2010-2012. Substantial amounts of funding were also transferred to adaptation-related multilateral funds and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Two federal ministries, the German Federal Ministry Economic Coop¬eration and Development (BMZ), and the German Federal Ministry Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), are responsible for the disbursement of FSF resources. Nearly half of this funding has been channelled through the German development cooperation agencies GIZ and KfW. Relatively few resources were delivered directly to developing country domestic institutions.

Germany FSF has primarily supported general mitigation (45 percent), and efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (26 percent), while 28 percent supports adaptation. Germany aimed to provide 50 percent of its climate finance for mitigation, 33 percent for adaptation activities, and 27 percent (EUR 350 million) for REDD+. The Copenhagen Accord sought a balance between adap¬tation and mitigation (including REDD+) during the FSF period. Adaptation has received less finance than expected at the outset of the FSF period. Overall, most German FSF resources have been allocated to the regions of Africa (34 percent) and Asia (29 percent). Additionally, roughly 60 percent of all adaptation finance and 50 percent of bilateral adaptation finance has been allocated to Small Island Developing States, Least Developed Countries, and African countries.

The majority of Germany’s FSF is provided through grants. Loans are provided to the CTF, and account for about 29 percent of the overall FSF contribution. Germany is relatively transparent about its FSF. Through BMU and BMZ, the German government publishes lists of the FSF projects it supports, reporting on the recipient country, project name, project description, objective, amount, implementing agency, financial instrument, and expected project duration. It also reports to the European Commission (EC) on an annual basis. In addition, Germany has commissioned a study on lessons learned from FSF for long-term finance. However, official reporting would be strengthened through the inclusion of information on the actual disbursements and on project impact.

Germany is one of the few countries which has applied and published a specific definition of “new and additional” for its FSF. Germany only counts those funds towards FSF which were committed in addition to a 2009 baseline (as part of Official Development Assistance, or ODA, spending) and/or which are generated by new financing sources, namely the auctioning revenues under the EU ETS. Nonetheless, some of the financial resources counted as FSF were pledged before the FSF period: for example, Germany pledged finance to the CIFs in 2008, but only funding delivered from 2010 onwards was counted as FSF. All German FSF is counted towards ODA. However, Germany has yet to meet its commitment to provide 0.7 percent of its Gross National Income as ODA, and in fact its ODA contributions have recently declined. Also, Germany’s climate finance is committed in the context of a complementary commitment to scale up finance for biodiversity under the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). It will be important to monitor reporting against both of these commitments in order to understand whether pledges have been duplicated or recycled.

Most of the projects counted towards FSF seem to have a principal or at least significant climate objective. An independent application of the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) climate markers to the FSF projects suggests that the vast majority of projects seems to have a clear climate element, based on limited project informaiton. However, a focus on only bilateral projects reveals that the share of principally climate-driven projects may be lower than bilateral projects committed to other climate objectives. Furthermore, an assessment of the incremental climate change costs that are covered through the projects is not available.

Germany is one of the few developed countries to have committed climate finance beyond the FSF period. At COP18, Germany pledged to deliver EUR 1.8 billion in climate finance in 2013, an increase from the EUR 1.4 billion delivered in 2012.1 These funds will come from the general budget and from the “Sondervermögen Energie und Klimafonds” (“Special Energy and Climate Fund”). This separate budget structure is financed by auctioning revenues from the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS). The current low prices of carbon, however, may reduce available climate finance beyond 2012.

With regard to reporting on international climate finance, we suggest the following actions to further in¬crease transparency:

Continue to publish annual, project-level information after the close of the FSF period. Reporting systems could be updated to reflect the parameters of the new United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) common reporting format (for example, by specifying the sectors to which funding is directed). It could also seek to improve reporting on the actual state of implementation of projects, and actual disbursement of committed funds. Therefore, Germany may explore practical options for providing some project-level information on the results of at least the larger programs funded in real time, e.g on the basis of the project reporting that is required of implementers (such as through annual or evaluation reports).
Provide additional information on which projects are funded by which ministries.
Provide more detailed financial information on projects that meet commitments to increase both climate and biodiversity finance to provide greater clarity on synergies, and assure that finance has not been double-counted. Such reporting can also be related to climate finance reporting under the OECD climate markers, in order to ensure consistency with FSF reporting.
Further strengthen and harmonize reporting and transparency standards for implementing institutions, in particular dedicated multilateral climate funds. Ger¬many can support progress to this end as a member of the governing bodies of these funds.

With regard to Germany’s international climate finance approach as a whole, we offer the following recommendations:

Continue to work to increase support for adaptation, with the goal of achieving a greater balance between adaptation and mitigation.
Explore ways to work more closely with recipient country-based institutions through its delivery of climate finance. This may need to be accompanied by capacity building support in order to increase these countries’ capacity to access such funding and use it effectively.
Explore options to ensure that increasing climate finance as part of efforts to deliver ODA does not reduce support available to help countries address development challenges as a whole. In the German case, the fact that ODA has been declining while climate finance increases at a relatively rapid rate presents a particular challenge.
Consider options to find more reliable sources of climate finance. The German climate finance approach has been largely sourced through the revenues from emission-trading. Nevertheless, there is a need for all countries to further scale-up climate finance in order to meet agreed goals of mobilising USD 100 billion from a mix of public and private sources by 2020. Options might include multilateral efforts to strengthen the EU ETS through increased EU mitigation targets, as well as the deployment of other innovative sources, such as financial transaction taxes or revenues from international transport. A clear pathway for scaling up climate finance would help create greater predictability of finance, and help generate trust and ambition in developing countries.

RELEASE: Green Power Market Development Group Announced at Clean Energy Ministerial

Michael Oko — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:36:02 -0400

Business group will help increase the uptake of renewable energy sources in India

A group of leading businesses and organizations announced the expansion of India’s Green Power Market Development Group (GPMDG) at the Clean Energy Ministerial in New Delhi. The objective of the GPMDG is to transform energy markets and enable corporate buyers to access reliable and clean energy, diversify their energy portfolios with green power, and reduce their impact on climate change.

According to the latest reports, clean energy investment dipped in 2012, but it still was nearly $270 billion, which is a five-fold increase over the past decade.

Jamshyd Godrej, Chairman of CII - Godrej GBC said, “Moving to clean energy makes good business sense—and it can be done economically so that it benefits businesses and consumers alike. This innovative partnership brings together leaders in business and the non-profit arenas so we can mobilize action while understanding the underlying financial, regulatory and environmental considerations. If done right, the partnership can really help to spur the deployment of renewable energy in India.”

The GPMDG in India already has seven businesses on board with combined market value of more than $450 billion. It is being organized by the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) and the World Resources Institute (WRI), with the support of Shakti Foundation, Caterpillar Foundation, and US Department of Energy.

The GPMDG, which was recently launched in Bangalore, brings together renewable energy buyers, sellers and regulators together on a common platform. Its aim is to help close the supply-demand gap with renewable energy sources. GPMDG intends to integrate both utility scale and decentralized renewable energy options into industrial parks and housing developments in Bangalore.

“We need to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy in order to increase access to reliable and clean energy,” said Manish Bapna, Managing Director, World Resources Institute. “Companies can help generate this growth by procuring clean energy that is less expensive than diesel-based alternatives and will soon be cheaper than grid-based alternatives. The Green Power Market Development Group can be a powerful catalyst toward reaching these goals.”

By aggregating demand through a critical mass of participants, the GPMDG helps corporate renewable energy procurement achieve greater scale. It will help companies collaborate to buy renewable energy efficiently, and not in a fragmented way. GPMDG companies can be leveraged to build demand for renewable energy procurement, support new renewable energy projects, raise awareness and influence policy. Interactions between the private sector and policymakers will explore policy solutions and identify modifications in regulatory measures which can facilitate and encourage renewable energy purchase agreements.

Putting the Pieces Together for Good Governance of REDD+: An Analysis of 32 REDD+ Country Readiness Proposals

Sarah Parsons — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:05:45 -0400

Executive Summary

Developing countries are receiving new financial and technical support to design and implement programs that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degrada¬tion (referred to as REDD+). Reducing emissions from forest cover change requires transparent, accountable, inclusive, and coordinated systems and institutions to govern REDD+ programs. Two multilateral initiatives— the World Bank-administered Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the United Nations Collaborative Pro¬gramme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries (UN-REDD Programme)—are supporting REDD+ countries to become “ready” for REDD+ by preparing initial strategy proposals, developing institutions to manage REDD+ programs, and building capacity to implement REDD+ activities.

This paper reviews 32 REDD+ readiness proposals sub¬mitted to these initiatives to understand overall trends in how eight elements of readiness (referred to in this paper as readiness needs) are being understood and prioritized globally. Specifically, we assess whether the readiness proposals (i) identify the eight readiness needs as relevant for REDD+, (ii) discuss challenges and options for addressing each need, and (iii) identify next steps to be implemented in relation to each need. Our analysis found that the readiness proposals make important commit¬ments to developing effective, equitable, and well-governed REDD+ programs. However, in many of the proposals these general statements have not yet been translated into clear next steps.

Key Findings:

Discussions of stakeholder participation, non-carbon monitoring, and cross-sectoral coordination are the strongest in terms of the number of readiness proposals that identify issues as relevant for REDD+, discuss key challenges and options, and propose clear next steps (e.g., studies, processes, institutional support costs).
Few REDD+ countries consider specific design op¬tions or challenges related to REDD+ benefit sharing, conflict resolution, or revenue management systems, although most include plans to address these issues as readiness activities move forward.
Relatively few readiness proposals identify specific next steps to address land tenure challenges or estab¬lish mechanisms to coordinate with local institutions during REDD+ planning and implementation.
Cross-cutting issues such as vertical coordination of REDD+ programs and coherence of proposed new REDD+ bodies with existing forest sector institutions have not been explicitly considered in most readiness proposals to date.

Delivering on the commitments made in the readiness proposals will be crucial to building stakeholder confidence and scaling up financial support for REDD+ programs. We make three recommendations that can help countries make short-term progress on REDD+ objectives and ultimately develop effective and equitable REDD+ programs:

REDD+ countries, donors, and civil society stakehold¬ers should consider gaps identified by our analysis and work to ensure that readiness activities promote comprehensive and integrated approaches to designing REDD+ strategies, systems, and institutions.
REDD+ countries should improve efforts to prioritize and sequence readiness activities to enhance transpar¬ency on how readiness financing is allocated to differ¬ent readiness needs.
REDD+ countries should develop transparent and ac¬countable domestic systems for tracking progress on readiness activities to ensure that readiness proposal commitments to well-governed REDD+ programs are carried out in practice.

Clearing the Air: Reducing Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Natural Gas Systems

Sarah Parsons — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:48:29 -0400

Key Findings

Fugitive methane emissions from natural gas systems represent a significant source of global warming pollution in the U.S. Reductions in methane emissions are urgently needed as part of the broader effort to slow the rate of global temperature rise.
Cutting methane leakage rates from natural gas systems to less than 1 percent of total production would ensure that the climate impacts of natural gas are lower than coal or diesel fuel over any time horizon. This goal can be achieved by reducing emissions by one-half to two-thirds below current levels through the widespread use of proven, cost-effective technologies.
Fugitive methane emissions occur at every stage of the natural gas life cycle; however, the total amount of leakage is unclear. More comprehensive and current direct emissions measurements are needed from this regionally diverse and rapidly expanding energy sector.
Recent standards from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will substantially reduce leakage from natural gas systems, but to help slow the rate of global warming and improve air quality, further action by states and EPA should directly address fugitive methane from new and existing wells and equipment.
Federal rules building on existing Clean Air Act (CAA) authorities could provide an appropriate framework for reducing upstream methane emissions. This approach accounts for input by affected industries, while allowing flexibility for states to implement rules according to unique local circumstances.

ADVISORY: New Study and Discussion on Reducing Methane Emissions from Natural Gas

Michael Oko — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:19:50 -0400

WRI to release new working paper, “Clearing the Air: Reducing Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Natural Gas Systems.”

Download the paper, here.
Read a blog post on the paper, here.

The rapid expansion of unconventional natural gas has reshaped the U.S. energy picture through increased production and reduced price. The shale gas boom has also ignited vigorous debates around its environmental impacts. WRI’s new study, “Clearing the Air: Reducing Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Natural Gas Systems,” looks to clarify what is known about methane leakage, what progress has been made to reduce emissions, and what further steps can be taken.

The discussion will feature representatives from Shell, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Environmental Defense Fund, and WRI, and will be moderated by Keith Johnson, an environmental reporter for the Wall Street Journal.

The event will take place at WRI’s office on Thursday, April 4, at 9:00 a.m.

A continental breakfast will be served.

WHAT
Release of new study & discussion on methane emissions from U.S. natural gas systems

WHO
James Bradbury, Senior Associate and lead author, WRI, presenter

Will Allison, Director, Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, panelist

Mark Brownstein, Associate Vice President & Chief Counsel, U.S. Energy and Climate Program, Environmental Defense Fund, panelist

Fiji George, Onshore Science, Policy & Regulatory Advisor, Shell Exploration & Production Company, panelist

Michael Obeiter, Senior Associate and co-author, World Resources Institute, panelist

Keith Johnson, Staff Reporter, Wall Street Journal, moderator

WHERE
World Resources Institute
10 G St NE, 8th Floor
Washington, DC
(Red Line Metro)

CALL-IN
Go to: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/join/821281274 Or
Dial +1 (213) 493-0602
Access Code: 821-281-274
Meeting ID: 821-281-274

WHEN
Thursday, April 4

9:00 – 10:30 a.m.

RSVP required to press@wri.org (please indicate the event in your response)

ADVISORY: WRI and IMF to Host Major Speech by Lord Stern

Lauren Zelin — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:18:00 -0400

“Fostering Growth and Poverty Reduction in a World of Immense Risk”

Live webcast, video, and PowerPoint presentation available at bit.ly/sterndc

In the six turbulent years after the ground-breaking Stern Review, the risks of unmanaged climate change are substantially higher. On Tuesday, April 2, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Resources Institute (WRI) will co-host a major speech by Lord Nicholas Stern analyzing how the risks have changed, and arguing that the transition to the low-carbon economy is an opportunity for growth and poverty reduction.

Lord Stern will be introduced by Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, IMF, with commentary by Dr. Andrew Steer, President, WRI. Closing remarks will be delivered by Rachel Kyte, Vice President of Sustainable Development, World Bank.

This event will include an interactive discussion and is open to the media.

WHAT:
Address by Lord Nicholas Stern on “Fostering Growth and Reducing Poverty in a World of Immense Risk” co-hosted by IMF and WRI.

WHO:
Lord Nicholas Stern, Chair, Grantham Research Institute
Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, IMF
Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO, WRI
Rachel Kyte,Vice President of Sustainable Development, World Bank

WHEN:
Tuesday, April 2, 2013

TIME:
2:30 – 4:00 p.m.
Note: Guests should arrive 15 minutes early to register; Photo ID required

WHERE:
IMF Headquarters
Building 2, Conference Hall 1
1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC

SOCIAL MEDIA:
Please use #sterndc to tweet about this event. We will take questions via Twitter.

RESOURCES
Live webcast, video, and PowerPoint presentation available at bit.ly/sterndc

RSVP required to press@wri.org

A Critical Decade for Climate Policy: Tools and Initiatives to Track Our Progress

Sarah Parsons — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:13:21 -0500

Summary

The last five years have seen both broad and deep advancements in national policies to mitigate future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The next five years will be instrumental in ensuring that these policies are implemented effectively, creating sustained change that will achieve gigatonne-scale GHG reductions, and laying the foundation for countries to move ahead with ever more ambitious approaches to reduce GHG emissions and limit the dangers and costs of a changing climate.

In order to support effective development and implementation of climate policies, a suite of policy tracking tools and initiatives is evolving, with a variety of characteristics tuned to address different questions and audiences. Underlying these efforts is the observation of metrics related to climate policy development, adoption, implementation, and/or effect. These initiatives seek to complement the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) processes under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), promoting accountability for governments to set and meet ambitious yet feasible goals and targets, identifying barriers and facilitating course corrections when necessary, and ultimately supporting overall policy progress and effectiveness.

Government and intergovernmental organizations are the key actors who adopt and implement policies and actions; however, independent analysts, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector play a vital role from the early stage development of climate, energy, and land use policies on through to adoption and into implementation, in order to ultimately achieve the desired GHG reductions. In this context, the field of climate policy tracking can serve to:

Build and maintain political momentum, and offer technical analysis and design principles.
Provide independent estimates of likely policy effects as well as risks, strengths, and uncertainty.
Spread shared learning and best practices between countries or sectors to improve efficacy.
Juxtapose policy portfolios with reduction pledges, abatement potential, and climate needs.

In order to succeed in this role, a complete climate policy tracking landscape needs to fulfill a range of functions, which may then be tailored to particular needs and questions. Successful efforts will have many things in common. Ongoing and continuous monitoring of policy progress should be coupled with evaluations of policy effectiveness and appraisals of likely and expected outcomes of policy trajectories. A combination of quantitative and qualitative inputs and outputs are necessary both to measure expected outcomes and progress toward milestones, but also to recognize the non-linear and imprecise nature of policy development and implementation.

This paper represents an initial effort by our institutions to broaden our collective lens and learn more from each other and our peers in the climate policy tracking community. We will supplement this analysis in the future, and aim to convene practitioners on a regular basis. Given our current understanding of the climate policy tracking landscape, we offer the following observations:

The climate policy tracking community has developed a diverse portfolio of methodologies and frameworks to address a range of policy tracking needs.
Nevertheless, information about climate policies remains patchy. In particular, there is little coordinated monitoring of policy implementation (in contrast to policy adoption) or of policies currently under development. Geographies are unevenly covered and quantifications and projections are often inconsistent.
Many climate policy tracking efforts are conducted by international organizations and target the needs of an international audience, though some good examples exist at the country level.
Technical abatement potential serves as a useful goalpost but lacks political and policy context.

Drawing from this body of work, we offer the following recommendations for other practitioners, funders, and governments:

Deepen monitoring and evaluation of policy implementation and policies under development, drawing on existing methodologies and frameworks.
Strengthen climate policy tracking at the country level—in partnership with national organizations—while maintaining internationally focused efforts.
Enhance coordination and collaboration among climate policy tracking practitioners, including with regard to ongoing refinement of methodologies, coordinating deployment of methodologies to answer priority questions, and communicating results.
Continue to scope out emerging issues, including country- and sector-specific tracking efforts, the intersection of independent tracking with biennial reports and biennial update reports under the UNFCCC, and the need to develop a more nuanced understanding of abatement potential to inform ambitious yet feasible goals against which to track progress.

Fact Sheet: 2012, A Year of Record-Breaking Extreme Weather and Climate

Sarah Parsons — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:13:20 -0500

Summary

The United States experienced its hottest year on record in 2012.

On a global scale, not only did last year mark the 36th consecutive year the annual global temperature was above average, but each successive decade in the last 50 years has been the warmest on record. Additionally, the recent draft National Climate Assessment states that it is “virtually certain” that global temperatures will continue to warm throughout the remainder of the century, and the longer we delay reducing greenhouse gas emissions the greater the magnitude of warming will occur. In a warmer world, the trend of increasing extreme weather and climate events is expected to continue – 2011 and 2012 each experienced more extreme weather and climate events costing over $1 billion each than any other year in recorded history.

The 8-inch rise in average global sea level over the last century has intensified the impacts of storm surge. This was exemplified during Hurricane Sandy, where record high water levels and abnormally warm ocean temperatures amplified the storm’s impact along the coast of the Northeast United States. State officials in New York and New Jersey estimated aggregate losses of nearly $80 billion from Sandy, shattering the aggregate $55 billion in losses caused by weather and climate disasters in 2011 – a year when a record 14 extreme weather and climate events caused at least $1 billion in losses each.

Download the full fact sheet for more figures relating to temperature, Hurricane Sandy, wildfires, drought, sea level rise, and melting ice.

ADVISORY: Press Call on China’s New Leadership: Confronting Energy and Environmental Challenges

Michael Oko — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:32:38 -0500

As China continues its leadership transition next week at the National People’s Congress, many are wondering how the country will confront its pressing environmental, climate, and energy challenges. On Friday, March 1 at 9 a.m. EST, WRI’s ChinaFAQs network will bring together leading experts for a press teleconference to discuss these issues.

China’s new leaders have declared that making “ecological progress” will be a priority. However, in recent weeks, environmental challenges—including pollution, air quality, water scarcity, and greenhouse gas emissions—have all been in the headlines.

Experts will discuss what to watch for in China’s energy mix and new policies, including a potential carbon tax. They will also discuss implications of the government’s restructuring of energy and environmental authorities, and opportunities for U.S.-China collaboration on clean energy.

The call is being hosted by ChinaFAQs, a network of independent, U.S.-China experts assembled to provide insights and analysis around climate and energy issues in China.

LISTEN TO THE RECORDING:

WHAT:
Press teleconference on China’s leadership transition and energy and sustainability issues

WHO:
Melanie Hart, Policy Analyst, Center for American Progress
Ailun Yang, Senior Associate, World Resources Institute
Julio Friedmann, Chief Energy Technologist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Technical Program Manager for the US-China Clean Energy Research Center for Advanced Coal Technology

WHEN:
Friday, March 1, 2013

TIME:
9:00 a.m. EST

CALL-IN:
US (Toll-Free): 866-803-2143
US/Int’l (Toll): +1 (210) 795-1098
CHINA: + 86-400-810-4773

ACCESS CODE: “WRI”

RSVP to lzelin@wri.org

STATEMENT: Florida Hosts Town Hall on National Climate Report

Michael Oko — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:01:09 -0500

The U.S. Global Change Research Program is hosting a town hall this week to inform communities about the draft National Climate Assessment (NCA) report, along with local and regional efforts to respond to the impacts of climate change. The Southeast Regional Town Hall is part of the roll out of the NCA and will take place in Tampa, Florida, on February 19, 2013.

Florida faces extensive threats from climate change. According to the draft NCA, the challenges include:

Florida is home to roughly $500 billion of the more than $1 trillion of property and structures in the country at risk of inundation from a sea-level rise of 2 feet (above the current sea level).
Tourism attractions in Florida, like the Everglades and Florida Keys, are threatened by climate change impacts from sea-level rise and are estimated to lose $9 billion by 2025 and $40 billion in revenue by 2050.
Salt water intrusion into freshwater supplies will be accelerated by sea-level rise, making the porous aquifers in Florida particularly vulnerable. Already, officials in Hallandale Beach, FL have been forced to abandon 6 of their 8 drinking water wells.
Cumulative costs of responding to sea-level rise and flooding events to the national economy could reach $325 billion by 2100, with Florida incurring $130 billion of the total (or 40% of the aggregate national cost.)

Following is a statement by Christina DeConcini, Director of Legislative Affairs, World Resources Institute:

“With its flat landscape and porous foundation, Florida is one of the most vulnerable places to sea-level rise in the world. The draft National Climate Assessment report adds to a growing body of scientific evidence that climate change is occurring and is already causing adverse impacts. The report underscores that the climate crisis will continue to build unless action is taken by the U.S. government to address climate change. State and national officials should be doing more to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change and plan how to respond to its impacts. Doing so will benefit people and the economy in Florida and across the nation.”

Find out more about sea-level rise impacts on Florida in WRI’s fact sheet.

STATEMENT: WRI Response to the State of the Union

Michael Oko — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:01:05 -0500

In his State of the Union address, President Obama presented his priorities for his second term, including addressing the threat of climate change.

New analysis by the World Resources Institute has identified four essential steps the Obama Administration can take to reach its national target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

Following is a statement by Andrew Steer, President, World Resources Institute:

“President Obama made it clear that climate change is one of the great challenges of our generation. It’s a national priority that is essential for the country’s economic future and its global competitiveness. He announced that we ‘must do more to combat climate change.’ If the president puts these words into action, citizens of the United States will be better off, as will citizens around the world.

“The President declared that he will direct his Administration to cut pollution, prepare the country for the consequences of climate change, and shift to more sustainable energy– these policies will be good for people and the economy.

“The President also called on Congress to engage on this issue. This is important. While the President can and should act, the cost would be lower and the benefits greater with market-based legislation that would effectively put a price on carbon.

“Analysis by the World Resources Institute shows that the Administration can make significant progress in reducing emissions. It can start by enacting standards for existing power plants, which represent the largest portion of U.S. emissions. The U.S. can also make progress by cutting emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, tackling methane from natural gas systems, and enhancing energy efficiency.

“By reaching its emissions target, the U.S. can signal that it’s serious about tackling climate change at home while enhancing its credibility on the global stage. With more droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather events taking their toll around the globe, the world desperately needs more action. And, it needs the United States to be a leader on climate change.

“The Obama Administration has the tools. Now is the time to use them.”

–

Read an Op-ed by Andrew Steer in the Hill about how the Administration can reduce U.S. emissions.

Read more about WRI’s new report on U.S. emissions, “Can the U.S. Get There From Here?”

RELEASE: New Report Presents Pathway for U.S. to Reach 17 Percent Emissions Target

Michael Oko — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:10:44 -0500

Analysis finds U.S. is currently not on track to reach its 17% target, but has the tools to get there <!–break–>

New analysis by the World Resources Institute finds that the United States is currently not on track to reach its stated goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 (below 2005 levels), but it has the tools to get there. The new report, “Can the U.S. Get There from Here?” explores specific steps the Administration and states can take to reduce U.S. emissions, without Congressional action.

“President Obama has put tackling climate change high on his agenda. Our analysis shows that with strong leadership and ambitious action the Administration can make a significant dent in U.S. emissions,” said Dr. Andrew Steer, President, World Resources Institute. “Meeting the 17 percent target would signal that the U.S. is serious about climate change at home and would enhance U.S. leadership on the international stage.”

The analysis finds that the Administration has the opportunity to move forward in four key areas:

Implementing strong standards for carbon dioxide pollution from existing power plants;
Reducing non-energy sources of emissions, including hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are commonly found in refrigerators and air conditioners;
Limiting methane emissions from natural gas production; and
Increasing energy efficiency from industry and home appliances.

“The Administration has multiple ways to move forward with smart policies to reduce U.S. emissions. The best opportunity is to enact new standards for existing power plants, which represent one-third of all U.S. emissions,” said Nicholas Bianco, Senior Associate, WRI, and the lead author of the report. “The Administration has the ability to put the U.S. on track to meet its commitments, and can do so in a cost-effective and efficient manner.”

The report also finds that states can take meaningful action and can use their authority to supplement federal actions. Twenty-nine U.S. states have renewable energy standards and 20 have energy efficiency standards. Some states are moving forward with ambitious climate policies. For example, California just launched a cap-and-trade program that will cover 85 percent of the state’s emissions. California also has a target to produce 33 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. On the East Coast, nine states have capped emissions from the power sector through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

While meeting the 17 percent target is achievable, scientific authorities have found that it will take deeper reductions to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Reaching the longer-term goals will likely take additional action from Congress. In the meantime, there is much more the Administration can do to reduce U.S. emissions.

“In meeting its goal, the U.S. can join the global community in taking on the climate crisis. Reducing emissions will benefit U.S. citizens and encourage other countries to make greater reductions,” said Dr. Steer. “It’s clear that the longer the U.S. waits, the harder – and more expensive – it will be. The Administration has the tools. We look forward to seeing what steps they take to shift the country to a low-carbon pathway.”

NOTE: The full report can be found here.

Embed this graphic on your site.

<iframe id="wri-17-percent" src="http://wri.org/sites/all/lib/17-percent/index.html" height="820px" width="625px" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"> </iframe>

Can the U.S. Get There from Here? Using Existing Federal Laws and State Action to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Sarah Parsons — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:51:17 -0500

Summary

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are expected to rise unless additional policy actions are taken. This report identifies a suite of policies that the Administration can pursue that do not require new legislation by the U.S. Congress. If pursued with “go-getter” level ambition, those policies can reduce U.S. emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020.

Key Findings

Without new action by the U.S. Administration, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will increase over time. The United States will fail to make the deep emissions reductions needed in coming decades, and will not meet its international commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
The U.S. EPA should immediately pursue “go-getter” emissions reductions from power plants and natural gas systems using its authority under the Clean Air Act. These two sectors represent two of the top opportunities for substantial GHG reductions between now and 2035.
The U.S. Administration should pursue hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) reductions through both the Montreal Protocol process and under its independent Clean Air Act authority. Eliminating HFCs represents the biggest opportunity for GHG emissions reductions behind power plants.
U.S. states should complement federal actions to reduce emissions through state energy efficiency, renewables, transportation, and other actions. States can augment federal reductions.
New federal legislation will eventually be needed, because even go-getter action by federal and state governments will probably fail to achieve the more than 80 percent GHG emissions reductions necessary to fend off the most deleterious impacts of climate change.

This chart shows potential reductions under existing federal authorities and state action through 2035.

Interactive Graphic

Embed this graphic on your site.

Presentation

Can The U.S. Get There From Here? from World Resources Institute (WRI)

Testimony: American Energy Security and Innovation: An Assessment of North America's Energy Resources

Sarah Parsons — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:21:07 -0500

Summary of Key Points

Our energy choices need to factor in both opportunities and risks. This testimony gives particular attention to why we must consider the risk of climate change, both on our resources being developed and utilized today and on our choices for development into the future. It concludes with the following recommendations:

Congress should request that the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee review the current authorities of federal agencies and national laboratories, and recommend how consideration of risks associated with climate change can be more directly incorporated into decision-making.
Congress should support efforts to better assess the impacts of climate change on America’s energy infrastructure and incorporate this into planning and investment decisions.
Congress should keep in mind four important criteria in considering policies to drive more effective clean energy growth and competitiveness: any energy policy should be comprehensive, long-term, targeted, and inclusive.
In capturing energy efficiency across the economy, Congress can play a constructive role in two key areas:
- Informed consumer choice: supporting and expanding programs to help ensure product labeling is accurate and publicly reported in a timely manner, to encourage energy-wise investment decisions throughout the U.S. economy.
- Efficiency standards: supporting and extending the ability of federal agencies to develop and update energy efficiency standards for vehicles, appliances, and other energy-consuming equipment that is sold into U.S. commerce.
Congress must work toward reaching bipartisan agreement on national energy policies that encourage more efficient energy consumption, increase the diversity of domestic energy production, maximize deployment of low-carbon energy technologies, and minimize environmental impacts throughout our energy systems. In the near-term, it is also critical for Congress to provide funding and incentives for low-carbon and clean energy technologies.