Presidents of U.S. and China Make Climate Change Vows

A truck transporting coal in Beijing, China. Will a carbon cap and trade improve air quality around the world? Photo: Han Jun Zeng | FlickrCC.

On Friday, September 25^th, as part of a state visit to Washington D.C., President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China met with President Barack Obama to discuss climate change in front of a new summit in Paris this December. Both politicians have taken climate change seriously, and have committed their respective countries to doing something about the issue.

Amidst discussion about a number of other issues, Xi announced nationwide implementation of a carbon cap and trade system in China by 2017, based on a system already in place in several regions. This system would reduce emissions by setting a cap on carbon emissions, but would also allow manufactures to buy and sell the rights to produce carbon emissions.

A carbon cap and trade system would allow industries that find they don’t need to produce as many emissions to sell off their share to other industries that need to produce more, allowing for a more flexible system than simply capping how much carbon a given factory can produce. A similar plan was suggested in the United States in 2010 but failed to make it through Congress.

China is still considered a developing nation and, as such, has largely been left to produce carbon as it sees fit, while other countries, like the U.S. or Britain, face much more resistance from the United Nations.

President Obama would like to see more restrictions on developing nations, which still produce huge amounts of emissions.

China and the U.S. actually produce the most emissions of any countries in the world, but with both stepping up to reduce those emissions, climate change talks might be a little less tense this time around. In fact, President Obama stated that, if the U.S. and China can come to an agreement to limit their own emissions, it should be possible for other countries, developed or otherwise, to do the same.

Robert Redford Speaks Against Keystone XL Pipeline

Robert Redford has spoken out against the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Image: s_bukley / Shutterstock.com

In the polarizing debate over the Keystone XL pipeline, environmentalists include Oscar-winner Robert Redford, who went on record during an interview with Variety’s PopPolitics on SiriusXM lambasting Republicans for their support of the pipeline.

Accusing Republicans of “living in the 1950s” in terms of their approach to environmental issues, Redford was particularly negative in his assessment of Republican Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader who has championed the coal industry.

“He represents the polluters’ interest because he is living in the 1950s,” Redford told Variety.

The pipeline would carry oil from tar sands in Canada to refineries on the southern coast of the United States, presumably boosting the economy (estimates of the jobs it would create are around 42,000 temporary positions during a two-year period) but also potentially contributing to climate change in a major way.

Redford, like other environmentalists weighing in on the issue, said he felt the pipeline would better serve Canada than the US, particularly since transporting the oil over long distances would be so damaging to the environment.

President Obama has remained on the fence regarding the issue, refusing to support or reject the proposed pipeline until a state department review is completed. However, as Republicans begin to move forward with a bill to force approval, Obama as said he will veto it.

In addition to being a frequent contributor to environmental debates, Redford is a trustee of the Natural Resources Council. He has previously expressed concern about Congressional action taken on environmental issues.

How Obama Made Climate Change History this Week

Obama’s drastic climate changes are exactly what we need.
Action Sports Photography / Shutterstock.com

Early this week, the Obama administration unveiled historic environmental rules to cut carbon pollution from power plants by 30% by 2030. The rules, announced formally by the Environmental Protection Agency, are the first time any president has moved to regulate carbon pollution from power plants – the largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change.

“For the sake of our families’ health and our kids’ future, we have a moral obligation to act on climate,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said. “When we do, we’ll turn risks on climate into business opportunity. We’ll spur innovation and investment, and we’ll build a world-leading clean energy economy.”

The proposed rules also would result in reductions in particle pollutions, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide by more than 25 percent, which EPA officials say would prevent in 6,600 premature deaths and 150,000 asthma attacks in children per year once fully implemented. The health improvements also would result in the avoidance of 490,000 missed work or school days, which the EPA says equals savings of $93 billion a year.

Obama’s new environmental policy requires a 30% cut in power plant carbon emissions by 2030.
Image: Shutterstock

The proposal, although promoted fully by the president and Democratic leadership in Congress, ran into immediate opposition from business lobbies, Republicans in Congress and some Democrats facing tough election battles. The coal industry – which will be hit hardest by the new rules – said the regulations would hurt the economy and lead to power outages.

“If these rules are allowed to go into effect, the administration, for all intents and purposes, is creating America’s next energy crisis,” the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity said.

The problem is, the climate crisis will wipe us all out if we don’t do something big about it. What sort of world do we want our children to live in, or their children, or their children’s children? And for that matter, when does our planet just become completely unlivable? Will people believe that the time is right for a change then? No one ever said tackling a problem like climate change was going to be easy–it’s going to cost us a lot of money, effort, and yes, in some cases maybe even jobs (in many cases, it will actually create new jobs). But if we ignore it, or if we don’t do enough to combat it, the problem will only get worse. Isn’t the health of our planet more important than money? Than jobs? If we don’t figure something out, then someday money and jobs won’t matter anymore–because we’ll have completely destroyed our home, the place that allows us to live at all. It’s about time the U.S. got on board with climate change reform–especially since we’re one of the largest offenders. So bravo, Mr. Obama. Let’s just hope it’s not too late to make a difference.

New Efficiency for Big Trucks Ordered by President Obama

President Obama is pushing tougher fuel efficiency standards for big trucks.
Image: SNEHIT / Shutterstock.com

Earlier this week, Obama made steps in a new, increasingly muscular and unilateral campaign to tackle climate change. The President ordered the development of tough new fuel standards for the nation’s heavy-duty trucks. These new regulations will be drafted by March of 2015 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Transportation Department.

This limit on greenhouse gas pollution would combine with previous rules requiring passenger cars and light trucks to burn fuel more efficiently. Experts state that Obama’s a la carte approach will allow him to meet his target of 17 percent from 2005-2020.

Even though heavy-duty vehicles account for just 4% of registered vehicles on the road in the USA, they account for approximately 25% of road-fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions coming from the transportation sector. From the Obama administration’s previous efforts of bolstering fuel standards in 2011, the White House projects the country will save about 530 million barrels of oil — more than what is imported annually from Saudi Arabia — and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 270 million metric tons.

“The goal we are setting is ambitious,” Obama said of his plans to set new fuel standards. “But these are areas where ambition has worked out really well for us so far.”

Obama addressed the issue in remarks Tuesday at a Safeway distribution center in Upper Marlboro, MD.

Environmentalists Worry Over Trade Agreement

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.
Image: Shutterstock

The secretly negotiated trade agreement called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has caused serious concern from organizations like the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth.  The Trans Pacific Partnership includes 11 countries and several other countries are interested.  The negotiation notes have not been made public, but several leaked documents have released chilling news about where the trade agreement is headed.  Leading the negotiations are multinational corporations seeking to lower environmental and carbon emission regulations.  Monsanto is also lobbying to have bans on genetically modified foods lifted.  Many other corporations are seeking international protections that would prevent legal action against them for environmental law violations.

President Obama Addresses Climate Concerns

After a long election season with barely a mention of climate change, President Obama brought the topic up at his very first press conference following his re-election. According to the Associated Press, he discussed his previous efforts to reduce the U.S. carbon footprint, such as increasing vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, clean-energy production, and carbon-reduction technology.

But he also recognized that there is a long, hard road ahead. “I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions,” he said. “And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.”

Part of the problem, the President says, is making sure that there is a balance between keeping our economy healthy and addressing climate change at the same time. “If the message is somehow we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody’s going to go for that,” he said. “I won’t go for that.”

Some are proposing a carbon tax for the use of non-renewable resources and greenhouse gases. Some are concerned that such a tax will be overly burdensome to lower income families, but many environmentalists continue to advocate for the bill. The Congressional Budget Office is looking at ways to propose a tax law that would not break lower income families’ budgets.

Perhaps it’s the broadened sense of post-election status, but Obama’s straightforward discussion of climate change—a generally very controversial topic—certainly comes as a relief to many.

“[Y]ou can expect that you’ll hear more from me in the coming months and years about how we can shape an agenda that garners bipartisan support and helps move this—moves this agenda forward,” he said.