China orders 7 pilot cities and provinces to set CO2 caps

China’s National Development and Reform Commission started a pilot program for seven cities and provinces to set CO2 caps to prepare for local pilot carbon markets. These pilot programs will include overall caps, implementation plans, and dedicated funds to support the programs.

-Khalial Withen

The article:

(Reuters) - China has ordered seven provinces and cities to set caps on greenhouse gas emissions in preparation for the launch of local pilot carbon markets, according to a notice issued by the country's state planning agency on Friday.

The National Development and Reform Commission requested the cities of Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing and Shenzhen, along with the provinces of Hubei and Guangdong, to set "overall emissions control targets" and submit proposals as to how the targets will be allocated.

The provinces and cities have also been ordered to set up a dedicated fund to support the project and to draw up comprehensive implementation programs, the notice said.

An implementation plan drawn up by Guangdong, China's biggest CO2-emitting province, has already been approved by the State Council, the country's cabinet.

It commits the province to increasing the share of non-fossil fuels to 20 percent of total energy consumption by 2015, and to cutting the amount of carbon dioxide produced per unit of economic growth -- carbon intensity -- by 19.5 percent.

China as a whole has pledged to reduce carbon intensity by 17 percent over the 2011-2015 period, and said it is committed to using "market mechanisms" in order to reach the target.

It aims to bring 2005 levels of carbon intensity down 40-45 percent by 2020.

Besides the seven official pilot projects, there are more than 100 entities across the country trying to establish their own regional CO2 emissions trading platforms, including the coal-rich province of Shaanxi and the northeast port city of Dalian.

(Reporting by David Stanway; Editing by Ken Wills)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-china-carbon-idUSTRE80C0GZ20120113

New FERC Ruling on Curtailing Wind in the NW

After having to curtail wind during storms where there was excessive wind and hydro the Bonneville Power Authority is testing a residential energy storage program:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/business/energy-environment/as-wind-energy-use-grows-utilities-seek-to-stabilize-power-grid.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&sq=taming%20wind%20wald&st=cse&scp=1&adxnnlx=1323483013-iJOBU1EzInNL8Ls1%20ihJ2A

More recently, FERC ruled that BPA's current policy to curtail ONLY wind during times when generation is greater than consumption is not legal. BPA will have to rewrite its curtailment rules.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/business/energy-environment/bonneville-power-ordered-to-change-wind-rules.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fscience%2Fearth%2Findex.jsonp

Japan's Energy Crisis

Japan truly is facing an energy crisis. In the post-Fukushima nuclear world, Japan is facing some difficult times. Limits on air conditioning this summer will now be translating into heating restrictions this winter. Reactors, shut down for maintenance since the disaster this past spring, have remained down. Normally, reactors restart once maintenance is complete, but public safety concerns in Japan have blocked all suspended reactors from resuming operations since Marth 11th.

This means that only 8 out of the 54 Japanese reactors are still in service.

Regional utilities and the public are at odds, too. These monopoly power producers are being brought into question by both elected officials and the general public. With no resolution to the nuclear concerns in sight, Japan is surely launching itself into an energy crisis. I hope the country can find adequate solutions for the long term, but also maintain standards of living as they come up with new energy strategies and policies.

-alex khoshnevissan

Durban COP 17/CMP7: Climate Talks Suspended After Rebellion Over Drafts

AND speaking of the seemingly hopeless state of international climate change policies in the post-Kyoto regime (in my previous post about low-carbon investments in developing nations), the world is currently amidst the COP17/CMP7 in Durban, South Africa. This is particularly interesting as the European Union has almost unilaterally committed itself to strict emissions reductions going forward. Of course, the question begging to be asked is about the overall effectiveness of such a unilateral commitment.

The EU is hoping to take a big leap forward to convince the the largest emitters - China, the US, and India - to commit to similar policies. China and India show no desire to limit their own development, especially since the developed world is overwhelmingly the source of emissions up until very recently. And of course the US will not commit without its major trade parters. Not the most hopeful situation, and it will be interesting to see what EU decides in the medium to long run if there is continued resistance from the rest of the world.

-alex khoshnevissan

India's Growing Solar Market

http://news.yahoo.com/india-bathes-solar-spotlight-170628802.html

India’s solar electric production should reach 141 megawatts by the end of this year. Considering that the solar market in India was virtually nonexistent 2 years ago, this is significant progress that can be attributed to solar incentive programs at the state and national level. The national government has set the goal of 20 GW solar power by 2020.


- Jonathan Lo

Climate Change in the Developing World: How to Finance It?

This article is pretty relevant considering the recent lecture on the developing world. Obviously, clean development is/will be crucial - but how will this be financed and who will pay for it?

It comments on the agreement at 2009 Copenhagen climate summit that the rich world (who were the polluters of the past as they went through industrialization, etc.) would, by 2020, invest $100 billion a year to help mitigate and adapt to global climate change.

That is a pretty large sum of capital, and it seems pretty unlikely, especially given recent budget issues and slowed growth in the developed world. This Green Climate Fund still has many uncertainties, including how developed countries will deliver on this promise and even what role the fund would play.

The article argues that the money should cover the 'incremental costs' of low-carbon development; this means financing the extra cost of low-carbon investment (for example, the additional costs of solar plant compared to a coal plant). This is an interesting proposal, especially as it places more responsibility and involvement on the receiving country.

In addition, there is some good news despite the uncertainty of climate talks. Andrew Steer, the World Bank's special envoy for climate change, argues that the paralysis at the global policy level is not mirrored in global clean/green investments; "the world of action on climate change is a long, long way ahead of the world of negotiation." The article cites that some $200 billion was invested in renewable energy, low carbon trasport and energy efficiency in the developing world. That accounts for over a third of the global total - something to be optimistic about.

-alex khoshnevissan

E.P.A. Links Tainted Water in Wyoming to Hydraulic Fracturing for Natural Gas

To respond to the Teaching Team's post below, fracking is getting tons and tons of relatively recent and relevant news.

For one, the New York Times has begun and incredible investigation of internal and confidential documents of the industry, and between regulators (such as the EPA). It's called Drilling Down, and can be found here. They have thousands of pages of documents, annotated by the staff, where the federal officials question the the validity of shale gas here. I must say that I was pretty in favor of fracking until I began looking through the amazing compilation and research done by the New York Times (and I am not generally a fan of the media either). From glancing through the documents, the worry seems to be that the human risk impacts of gas extraction on local communities may rival some of the atrocities associated with coal. The greatest and most pressing worry is the large-scale contamination of drinking water, which is already occurring here in the United States (according to the EPA).

In addition, the economic benefits of shale are even being questioned. The U.S. Geological Survey just reduced its estimate of undiscovered Marcellus Shale gas by as much as 80 percent in a recent updated assessment.

Obviously, this issue is complex. The Economist is a proponent of fracking, although they do say: "such issues [as in Europe] have been raised in America, too, but energy firms there have been able to ignore them because they are exempt from many environmental rules. An intervention in 2005 by Dick Cheney, then vice-president, wrested an armful of exemptions specifically for fracking. That has helped the industry grow spectacularly. In 2000 shale beds provided 1% of America’s natural-gas supply; they now produce around 25%. But it has also allowed reckless American frackers to do environmental damage. Some are alleged to have pumped toxic chemicals into the ground with impunity." That sounds like kind of a big deal to me.

I for one am more torn than ever on the subject, and will try and keep my tabs on relevant news...

-alex khoshnevissan