Even if every industrialized country were to reduce its emissions to zero by 2050, atmospheric carbon levels would still be above what scientists tell us is dangerous.
That’s a pretty powerful statement, and it leads to the question: How do we convince developing countries to set limits on their emissions? A possible answer to that challenge brought me to Ghana this week.
This post is by Gustavo Silva-Chávez, an international policy analyst in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense Fund.
Early this week, the team from Environmental Defense Fund started boarding planes for Accra, Ghana to attend the international Climate Change Talks. The official first day was Thursday, but Wednesday was busy with pre-meeting workshops.
This post is by Gustavo Silva-Chávez, an international policy analyst in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense Fund.
Last December, a team from Environmental Defense Fund attended climate change negotiations in Bali – an annual meeting of some 190 countries. Next week, we’re headed to Accra, Ghana for another round of talks. These meetings, along with other talks this year and next, are part of an international negotiation process that will conclude in Copenhagen in late 2009.
The goal is to put the world on a path to avoid dangerous climate change. As part of this effort, EDF is working to encourage full participation of the United States, all other developed countries, and all major developing countries. The findings, recommendations and negotiated text coming out of these interim meetings will form the basic structure of the Copenhagen deal.
This post is by Tom Olson, a consulting attorney for the Climate and Air Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund.
Last Friday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally released its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – EPA’s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases fall within the Clean Air Act’s definition of "pollutant".
There are a number of differences between the final document and the leaked May 30th draft. (See this post from a Georgetown Law professor praising the draft’s balance and expertise.) Most significantly, EPA chief Stephen Johnson prefaced the document with a series of denunciations by White House officials. And then, adopting the views of the White House, he disparaged the work of his own staff.
The final version also included some disturbing changes to the analysis itself.
This post is by Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at Environmental Defense Fund, and former attorney in EPA’s General Counsel’s office.
Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit denied the petition for writ of mandamus filed by a coalition of states and environmental organizations to enforce the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on global warming in Massachusetts v. EPA. The coalition asked the court to instruct EPA to carry out its duty, under the Supreme Court’s decision, to determine within 60 days whether global warming pollution endangers human health and welfare.
This post is by Tony Kreindler, Media Director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund. It’s the fifth in a series on Why a Bill in 2008, and was also posted today on Grist.
1. Same Politics in 2009
2. Good versus Perfect
3. The Price of Waiting
4. The World is Waiting
5. Best Answer to High Gas Prices
Over the past few months, I’ve made the case for passing climate legislation in 2008. Now we’re finally on the doorstep of Senate action on a comprehensive climate change bill. Floor debate over the Climate Security Act (was S.2191, now S. 3036) will begin Monday, June 2.
If opponents of meaningful action have their way, the debate will be nothing more than a short, partisan fight over gas prices. You can already hear the predictable scare tactics: “Why would we want to raise gas prices now, when working Americans are already suffering at the pump?”
