Clues Why Not to Expect Much from Big Green Groups

What is troubling about the announcement this morning of a carbon-reduction agreement reached between the United States and China (Mark Landler, "U.S. and China Reach Climate Accord After Months of Talks") is the lack of reaction to be found on any of the web sites of the main environmental organizations.

The deal as summarized in an opinion piece by Secretary of State John Kerry that appears this morning in the Gray Lady, "China, America and Our Warming Planet: Our Historic Agreement With China on Climate Change," is as follows:

The targets themselves are also important. Ambitious action by our countries together is the foundation to build the low-carbon global economy needed to combat climate change. The United States intends to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 – a target that is both ambitious and feasible. It roughly doubles the pace of carbon reductions in the period from 2020 to 2025 as compared to the period from 2005 to 2020. It puts us on a path to transform our economy, with emissions reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050. It is grounded in an extensive analysis of the potential to reduce emissions in all sectors of our economy, with significant added benefits for health, clean air, and energy security. 

Our target builds on the ambitious goal President Obama set in 2009 to cut emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. We are on track to meet that goal, while creating jobs and growing the economy, with the help of a burgeoning clean energy sector. Since the president took office, wind energy production has tripled and solar energy has increased by a factor of ten. This summer, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first carbon pollution standards for existing power plants, which account for a third of United States carbon pollution.

The Chinese targets also represent a major advance. For the first time China is announcing a peak year for its carbon emissions – around 2030 – along with a commitment to try to reach the peak earlier. That matters because over the past 15 years, China has accounted for roughly 60 percent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions world-wide. We are confident that China can and will reach peak emissions before 2030, in light of President Xi’s commitments to restructure the economy, dramatically reduce air pollution and stimulate an energy revolution. 

China is also announcing today that it would expand the share of total energy consumption coming from zero-emission sources (renewable and nuclear energy) to around 20 percent by 2030, sending a powerful signal to investors and energy markets around the world and helping accelerate the global transition to clean-energy economies. To meet its goal, China will need to deploy an additional 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other renewable generation capacity by 2030 – an enormous amount, about the same as all the coal-fired power plants in China today, and nearly as much as the total electricity generation capacity of the United States.

This agreement was fully expected. Prior to Obama's appearance at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, Landler clued in his readers that a climate deal between the two largest economies was rumored to be forthcoming, a way to sculpt next year's global negotiations in Paris.

That's why it is bizarre that there is (so far) basically nothing available about the bilateral accord on 350.org (a Tweet that linked to a story, "US and China strike deal on carbon cuts in push for global climate pact," by The Guardian); National Resources Defense Council (a pro forma press release, that is difficult to find on their home page, which was used in The Guardian story -- "Frances Beinecke, president of US-based environmental group the Natural Resources Defence Council, said: 'These landmark commitments to curtail carbon pollution are a necessary, critical step forward in the global fight against climate change. We look forward to working with both governments to strengthen their efforts because we are confident that both can achieve even greater reductions' "); Friends of the Earth (zero); Sierra Club (nothing this morning, though they do have a press release about TPP impasse at the APEC summit in Beijing); and Greenpeace (nothing).

More evidence of sclerosis in institutions (along with organized labor and the Democratic Party) purportedly popular and progressive. Not an encouraging sign going forward that any sustained effort is going to be mounted by mainstream environmental groups against the Koch brothers dominantion of national government.

Ben Adler writing for Grist, "New U.S.-China climate deal is a game changer," is supportive:

Reaching the new emission-reduction targets is certainly technologically possible, and allowable under existing law — as long as Congress doesn’t figure out a way to stop to it. Emissions have already declined, we’ve got new rules on tailpipes, and with the proposed power plant rules, we are almost there already. “I think it’s achievable,” says Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program. “They might have to make some tweaks [to the power-plant targets], but I don’t see it as being a radical rewrite of the goal.”

It will be necessary to finalize power-plant rules — the centerpiece of Obama’s Climate Action Plan — that are as strong, if not stronger, than what is already proposed. Other components of the plan, like possible rules to limit methane leakage from fracking, don’t have the potential to achieve such big reductions. Still, moving forward with them will also be necessary. 

But any tightening of EPA regulations or introduction of new ones would risk inciting even stronger political backlash or being overturned in court. Even Democrats in fossil fuel–producing red states ran away from the rules in this last election. (They still got clobbered.) Republicans are already mulling ways to impede the power-plant rules by defunding the regulatory process. The stronger the rules get, the more childish they’ll act. And they will have the same reaction to anything else Obama tries to do through executive action.

Coral Davenport had a story yesterday, "Republicans Vow to Fight E.P.A. and Approve Keystone Pipeline," confirming Adler's point. The G.O.P. marinated, as Nader says (and also the focus of a good column by Gail Collins last Saturday, "Republicans ♥ Pipeline"), in oil and gas money will dig in and attempt to hollow out the EPA and flirt with another government shutdown to get Keystone XL passed, thereby pleasing their Koch paymasters. According to Davenport,

Republicans also planned to use their majority to enact legislation requiring the president to approve the Keystone pipeline. Republicans and the oil industry have issued angry calls for construction of the pipeline, which they see as a crucial conduit for oil. 

Environmentalists have campaigned against the project, which they see as a symbol of environmental degradation. Mr. Obama has delayed a decision on the project for years, as the State Department conducted numerous reviews of its impact on the nation’s environment, economy and national security. 

The State Department is now awaiting a decision by a Nebraska court on the route of the pipeline before any decision is made. 

If Republicans send a Keystone bill to Mr. Obama before the Nebraska verdict, the president is likely to veto it. But people familiar with the president’s thinking say that when it comes to climate change policy, Mr. Obama sees the E.P.A. regulations as the centerpiece of his environmental agenda and the Keystone pipeline as a sideline issue. 

Asked about the project at a news conference last week, Mr. Obama said, “I’m going to let that process play out.” Then he added, “And I’m just going to gather up the facts.” 

Republicans were likely to add a Keystone-approval provision to key spending bills, again daring Mr. Obama to veto such a measure. Mr. Obama appeared willing to veto such measures to protect the climate change rules, which could have an impact on the nation’s energy economy for the coming decades. But he may not be willing to do so for the pipeline, a single piece of infrastructure. 

“I think there is probably a deal to be had on Keystone,” said David Goldwyn, who led the State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resources in Mr. Obama’s first term. “If Republicans attach Keystone to a budget bill, I don’t think he’s so principally opposed to it that he would veto it.”

Previously I entertained the possibility of Obama's acquiescence to Keystone XL causing Bill McKibben to spearhead the creation of a new political party, or a political coalition with the Green Party and some of the existing socialist parties. Now, judging from the lack of reaction to the Obama-Xi Jinping carbon-reduction deal, I'm convinced nothing of the sort will happen.

As for the viability of the bilateral accord, a commentator, cosmicomics, to Adler's piece says it well:

“The real proof will be in the pudding. There’s no way approving the Keystone XL pipeline and additional fossil fuel development is compatible with this pathway.”

The problem isn't just American emissions, but America's contribution to global emissions, so reducing American emissions doesn't help if U.S. policy continues to encourage the development of fossil fuels, which then can be used elsewhere. Obama appears to have a climate policy that aims to reduce emissions, while at the same time promoting an energy policy that increases them. 

“...the reality is that Obama has spent the last six years expanding coal, oil and gas production under his “all of the above” energy strategy. 

'We quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the earth and then some,' Obama told a rally during his 2012 re-election campaign. 

Coal exports have risen on Obama’s watch, with mining companies shipping some 100m tonnes a year for each of the last three years...