I did some digging into the text of the Kerry-Boxer, Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, on international adaptation and clean technology transfer provisions - basically, the stuff that makes or breaks what chance we have at a global treaty in Copenhagen.
For more on why these provisions are crucial to a global treaty, and why we get a big bang-for-our-buck when we focus on these, see my Blog Action Day post here.
As expected, the new version of the bill released on Friday night has more detailed language on how the to allocate revenue from the auctions. Those numbers determine how much money the US can put on the table in Copenhagen, where developing countries are collectively calling for $150 billion in international adaptation, clean tech transfer and reducing emissions from forest destruction.
One promising bit of news, and then some more depressing numbers. First, here’s the overview of the provisions, as given by the summary.
Supplemental Reductions from Preventing Tropical Deforestation: 5% of allowances will be allocated from 2012 through 2025 to prevent tropical deforestation and build capacity to generate international deforestation offsets. By 2020, this program will achieve additional emission reductions equivalent to 10% of U.S. emissions in 2005. From 2026 through 2030, 3% of allowances will be allocated to this program. In 2031 and thereafter, 2% will be allocated to this program.
International Adaptation and Clean Technology Transfer: From 2012 through 2021, 2% of allowances will be allocated for international adaptation and clean technology transfer. The amount of allowances allocated for these purposes will increase to 4% from 2022 through 2026 and to 8% in 2027 and thereafter. From 2012 through 2026, the allocation for international adaptation is supplemented by 0.25% each year of the additional allowances described below under "Supplemental Allowances."
Wading into the text of the bill, here are the major changes on international finance provisions. First, this excellent little paragraph heading off at least some of the potential abuses of REDD, which has come under extensive fire from justice groups.
This isn't my area of expertise, but the paragraph, which isn't in the older draft, seems to take a stab at a major issue with REDD - that its just a way for offset schemes to use public money for private profit. This, it seems, is a small step towards heading that off.
Pg 325, part of the section EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM REDUCED DEFORESTATION.
‘‘(c) NOT ELIGIBLE FOR OFFSET CREDIT.—Activities that receive support under this part shall not be issued offset credits for the greenhouse gas emissions reductions or avoidance, or greenhouse gas sequestration, produced by such activities.’’.
On actual international adaptation, Page 638 has one statement on the actual numbers for the allocations.
‘‘(8) INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AND GLOBAL SECURITY PROGRAM.—For the international climate change adaptation and global security program under section 324 of division A, and section 207 of division B, of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, the Administrator shall reserve 0.25 percent of the emission allowances for each of calendar years 2012 through 2026.
However, further down in pages 626-628 in Section 771 there are more precise numbers which seem to contradicting the earlier section.
- For the International Clean Energy Deployment Program under section 323 of division A, and section 206 of division B, of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act—
A) for each of vintage years 2012 through 2021, 1.0 percent of the emission allowances;
B) for each of vintage years 2022 through 2026, 2.0 percent of the emission allowances; and
C) for each of vintage years 2027 through 2050, 3.0 percent of the emission allowances.
- In addition to the emission allowances reserved under subsection (d)(8), for the international climate change adaptation and global security program under section 324 of division A, and section 207 of division B, of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act—
A) for each of vintage years 2012 through 2021, 1.0 percent of the emission allowances;
B) for each of vintage years 2022 through 2026, 2.0 percent of the emission allowances; and
C) for each of vintage years 2027 through 2050, 5.0 percent of the emission allowances.
So why does one of these sections say 0.25% until 2026, while the other says 1.0% until 2021, 2.0% until 2026 and 5.0% until 2050? That’s a fairly large difference when we’re talking about a global treaty and the financial framework needed to make it work.
One last note, Ed Markey attended a GLOBE International meeting in Denmark. The meeting of legislators from all over the world was intended as preparation for the COP15 meeting in December.
The GLOBE forum agreed that at least $100 billion per year in financial assistance would be needed in financial assistance from public and private sources including developed countries to meet the cost of adaptation to a changed climate in developing countries.
I’m glad that the US was favorably represented at this gathering, but I don’t know how Markey plans to get the US share of $100 billion/year out of congress in time for a treaty.
The Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. Despite its flaws, it is a major step towards understanding how to solve climate change at a global political level. Climate change is a ticking time-bomb which calls for rapid and significant action. The Copenhagen conference, the UNFCC process and the expiration of Kyoto all hinge on what the US does in the next few months.
Any help on picking some of these pieces apart would be greatly appreciated.