Strategy for Obama? Global Environment vs. Job Loss
Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 11:53AM Preface by Grant: This blog was written by Australian attorney, mediator and Ph.D. in biology, Ted Christie (see his bio in "Our bloggers"). Australia you say? How is that relevant to American policy? The ideas in the article may be solutions to Obama's policy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a policy that is on a collision course with socio-economic concerns (e.g., job losses). Heavy reading for a blog? Maybe for some . . . but the implications are very serious for the global environment and the economy of every nation!
Sustainability: A Pathway for Balancing
Large and Economically Risky Carbon
Emission Reductions and the Protection of
Jobs and Economic Activity (1)
by Dr. Ted Christie
ABSTRACT: This article reviews the "national measures" defined in the Kyoto Protocol for limiting and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. A multi-objective process, based on conflict management and resolution principles and concepts, is described that evaluates "national measures" for limiting and reducing emissions. The process is a decision-making aid that balances the multiple and competing objectives for sustainability - ecological, economic, social and cultural. The outcome (the "Preferred Scenario") is to find a sustainable solution that represents the optional "energy mix" that will meet the prescribed national emission reduction target to address global warming and that will also promote sustainable development.
In the situation that a sustainable solution cannot meet the national emission reduction target, then "additional means" as defined in the Kyoto Protocol, such as "carbon market mechanisms" (e.g. an ETS), can be introduced.
The US statute, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA") has been described as possibly the most successful legal export in history, as it has been a model for the EIA process in over 100 countries. Could it be possible for the decision of the US Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency to fulfil a similar role as NEPA? That is, for regulatory control to be adopted globally as one "national measure" arising under the Kyoto Protocol to enhance energy efficiency by limiting and reducing carbon dioxide emissions and facilitating sustainable development.
____________________
The full article has been posted at http://tedchristie.blogspot.com/
The article is an update, consolidation and revision of two earlier articles dealing with finding a sustainable solution for global warming that were published on the web site of the Australian legal publisher, LexisNexis (Butterworths), LexisNexis Electronic Professional Development Newsletter – Hot Topics Papers on 27 February (Part 1) and 25 March (Part 2) of this year.
Part 1: “Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Climate Change 1. Regulatory Control of Emissions as an Alternative Pathway to the Emissions Trading Scheme” can be found at the following link:
Part 2: “Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Climate Change 2. Is a Sustainable Solution an Effective Alternative to the Emissions Trading Scheme? can be found at the following link:
http://pd.lexisnexis.com.au/LiveAssets/images/488/Newsletter/2009/Hot_topic_paper_Part2_ClimateChange.pdf
________________
OVERVIEW OF ARTICLE
The Emissions Trading Scheme (or “ETS”) persists as a volatile issue in Australia notwithstanding the global environmental benefits associated with the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to combat climate change. The area where considerable uncertainty prevails is whether the environmental need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is on a collision course with socio-economic concerns that may emerge as a consequence of the proposed introduction of the ETS. For example, in Australia, claims of potential adverse impacts arising from the ETS continue to be made. These impacts include reductions in overseas exports, significant increases in power costs for the manufacturing sector and the community - through to job losses, possible closure of mines and flow on effects for the regional, State and national economies.
Commitments under the Kyoto Protocol: National Measures and Carbon Market Mechanisms
The Kyoto Protocol prescribes “national measures” to limit or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “Additional means” for meeting targets under the Kyoto Protocol are three market-based mechanisms, creating what are now known as “carbon market” mechanisms. “Emissions Trading” is one such Kyoto mechanism (2).
The ETS is by far the most common global approach undertaken globally, or proposed to be undertaken, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming. But, in meeting its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, Australia (or a Member State) is not restricted to carbon market mechanisms, such as the ETS, as any appropriate “national measures” may be considered.
Some insight into the “national measures” that could be undertaken by Australia (or a Member State) - other than the ETS - to meet its Kyoto commitments can be gleaned from Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol.
It is significant Article 2 requires “quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments” to be undertaken, “to promote sustainable development” through “national measures” such as:
(i) Enhancement of energy efficiency in relevant sectors of the national economy;
(ii) Protection and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol…; promotion of sustainable forest management practices, afforestation and reforestation;
(iii) Research on, and promotion, development and increased use of, new and renewable forms of energy, of carbon dioxide sequestration technologies and of advanced and innovative environmentally sound technologies.
The flexibility provided by the Kyoto Protocol that a nation may undertake to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions – national measures and/or carbon market mechanisms - is not surprising; there will be significant differences between the signatory nations to the Kyoto Protocol in the major point sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
For example, carbon dioxide emissions arising from the use of fossil fuels for energy production account for around 70% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions; the stationary energy sector contributes around 50% of total Australian emissions (3). Other major point sources of emissions vary globally. In California, passenger vehicles and light trucks account for about 40 % of the State’s total greenhouse gas emissions (4).
The Kyoto Protocol: National Measures to Promote Sustainable Development ~v~ Carbon Market Mechanisms [ETS]
- The ETS concept predates the concept of sustainability as it was first developed, in the 1980s, in the United States through a trading market to control emissions of the industrial gas, sulphur dioxide, in order to reduce acid rain. The ETS concept has been subsequently extended, globally, to a trading market for greenhouse gases e.g. the European Union Emission Trading Scheme.
- The ETS is essentially an “economic fix” for combating global warming.
- To give effect to the sustainable development objective of Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol, to reduce or limit greenhouse gas emissions and “to promote sustainable development”, it is argued that a sustainable solution warrants consideration as a “national measure” to combat global warming.
- A sustainable solution is one that balances the multiple and conflicting objectives for sustainability – ecological, economic and social; where Indigenous traditional knowledge has a role in environmental management for climate change (e.g. impacts on biodiversity), sustainability extends to include a cultural objective.
- Different “mixes” of energy options that reduce or limit carbon dioxide emissions can be evaluated, systematically, in terms of their ecological/economic/ social/cultural impacts on achieving a prescribed national target for emission reductions set by Government.
- A sustainable solution does not focus inordinately on one objective e.g. economics. A sustainable solution secures as much available value as possible for Government, industry and the community.
Figure 1. The Multi-objective process: Finding a sustainable solution for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. All scenarios are multiple use scenarios having a different mix of energy options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions resulting in different impacts on ecological, economic, social and cultural objectives (5)
SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
The projected probability for global warming over time warrants a risk analysis approach specifying the measures to be implemented for managing the risk of global warming to an “acceptable level of risk”.
(i) The regulatory control of carbon dioxide emissions as a means for enhancing energy efficiency, based on the decision of the US Supreme Court in Massachusetts et al. v. EPA, has not been considered as a “national measure” to combat global warming in Australia.
(ii) There is scope for the potential application of Massachusetts et al. v EPA to the regulatory control of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia as a Kyoto “national measure”. To achieve the goal of regulatory control of carbon dioxide emissions, the need for Government to effectively engage affected industries in setting a national standard for carbon dioxide emissions is paramount. An approach based on established principles for conflict resolution, such as shared responsibility, joint action and joint problem-solving for setting national standards for carbon dioxide emissions, would offset any concerns by industry that unnecessarily onerous obligations may be imposed. Ownership in the outcome by industry, derived in such an approach, would facilitate the national implementation of carbon dioxide emission standards by industry.
It is clearly evident that co-operation between Federal, State and Territory governments as well as industry is essential. Joint problem-solving is the foundation for a regulatory approach for carbon dioxide emissions that could be adopted as a “national measure”, as part of any sustainable solution to combat global warming.
(iii) A prudent path to take for prescribing a national emission standard aimed at achieving the “lowest achievable carbon dioxide emissions”, based on existing technology, would be to ensure it did not impose unnecessarily onerous obligations on industry and to ensure electricity production costs did not become prohibitive i.e. it was cost-effective. For example, the level set for any national emission standard could be counterbalanced against the costs for capturing and disposing of carbon dioxide;
(iv) Depending on the specific statute, a licence, authority, permit or developmental approval must be applied for and granted for any industry or activity that may emit a listed greenhouse gas that will, or has the potential, to cause environmental harm, dependent on the intensity [or concentration] of the greenhouse gas emitted.
However, coal fired power stations in Australia operate according to a licence, permit … issued under environmental protection legislation. Licence conditions maintain air quality through monitoring specific emissions. For example, dust emissions (fly ash or particulate matter) from the combustion process are already subject to monitoring according to a national ambient quality standard for particulate matter. Should a national ambient quality standard be prescribed for carbon dioxide emissions, it could be added as a condition of an existing licence and so subject to monitoring and reporting. No other permits would be required. Legislative permits under the regulatory control option should not be confused, in any way, with the permit trading mechanisms of an ETS.
(v) Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol requires “quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments” to be undertaken “to promote sustainable development” through “national measures”.
(vi) Following the release of the “Brundtland Report by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 and during the “Hawke-Keating era” as Prime Ministers, Australia led the world by introducing a draft policy for sustainable development in 1989 - followed by an innovative, national environmental policy for sustainable development introduced in 1992. Policy was subsequently incorporated into domestic environmental protection legislation, throughout Australia, from 1993.
(vii) The UK released a policy for sustainable development in 1999 and released a new and updated policy strategy in 2005. The statutory objective of the Environment Act (1995) is directed towards sustainable development – but no legal meaning for sustainable development is provided.
(viii) The United States, at the Federal level, has yet to give effect to sustainable development in environmental legislation. However, this situation is in contrast to the States. The United States, in contrast to Australia and the UK, has not ratified an international environmental convention that gives effect to sustainable development.
(ix) Socio-economic concerns raised over the introduction of the ETS, proposed for Australia, reflect a degree of uncertainty as to its compatibility with sustainable development.
(x) The significant feature of multi-objective analysis is that it represents a systematic process for finding a sustainable solution for global warming based on balancing the multiple and competing objectives for sustainability – ecological, economic, social and cultural. The ETS, in contrast is an ‘economic fix’ for resolving the environmental problem of global warming.
(xi) The multi-objective analysis process is an environmental decision-making aid based on established principles and concepts for conflict management, conflict resolution, alternative dispute resolution and principled negotiation.
(xii) The evaluation of the linkage between the limitation and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and sustainable development - required by the Kyoto Protocol through “national measures” - surprisingly, has received little consideration in Australia.
Australia – or any nation for that matter- now has an opportunity to be a catalyst for the world to consider the effectiveness of a sustainable solution as the basis for combating global warming.
END NOTES
(1) Author: Dr Ted Christie, Barrister and Mediator. A background to the author can be found at http://tedchristie.blogspot.com/
(2) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ‘The Kyoto Protocol’. http://unfccc.int/ (accessed 15 April 2009).
(3) Environment Protection and Heritage Council and the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources , ‘Draft Paper on Environmental Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geological Storage – November 2008’. http://www.nepc.gov.au/taxonomy/term/25 (accessed 6 February 2009).
(4) See Sec. 1(e) Assembly Bill 1493 (signed into law in 2002). Commencing in 2009, the California Air Resources Board was required to adopt a regulation requiring carmakers to reduce global warming emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks.
http://www.newrules.org/environment/climateca.html/ (accessed 6 March 2009).
(5). For a detailed description of the multi-objective analysis process and its application see ‘Sustainability and the Environment’ Chapter 5, 105-32 and ‘Managing and Resolving Environmental Conflicts by Negotiation’, Chapter 10, 263-94, in, Christie, Edward Finding Solutions for Environmental Conflicts: Power and Negotiation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK (2008).
Reader Comments (6)
Thank you on passing this on. My feeling is that if we get the right regulatory climate and enough investment, clean tech can take off, and jobs and the enviornment need not be mutually exclusive. It's often said that the government cannot dictate to the market and choose "losers" . . . but for decades, we have chosen a long term loser--petroleum.
Posted by Leon Kaye
The job turnaround for America begins when Obama loses his...
Posted by Lawrence Depenbusch
Grant,
An interesting issue of Consilience. Thank you for alerting us all to it.
I thought the best item in it was the brilliant piece by John Neville debunking the absurd and toxic Ayn Rand, with her dreadful doctrine of conceited selfishness that has provided such a convenient "personal philosophy" for so many who have ripped off the economy and the planet to the harm oof everyone (ultimately including themselves !!).
About the Ted Christie piece -- it's interesting, but I fear that among the reasonable-sounding framework stuff are pro-polluter preconceptions that in practice would used as be excuses for doing nothing, if his methodology was adopted as a basis for policy and decision-making. Note in particular that he says :
"... a prudent path to take for prescribing a national emission standard aimed at achieving the “lowest achievable carbon dioxide emissions”, based on existing technology, would be to ensure it did not impose unnecessarily onerous obligations on industry..." Who decides what is "unnecessarily onerous" ?? Why should adoption of new technology not be part of the picture??
Polluters also argue that EVERY increase in environmental standards and performance is "unnecessarily onerous", impossible and unaffordable -- they always have, and no doubt always will.
Posted by Michael Tyler
I think on of the most important important statements in Dr Christie's paper is:
" Australia – or any nation for that matter- now has an opportunity to be a catalyst for the world to consider the effectiveness of a sustainable solution as the basis for combating global warming."
The timing and nature of the Australian Government's ETS policy is currently one of the most significant issues in Australian politics. Australia's Rudd Government (Australian Labor Party) is attempting to pass climate change legislation through parliament before the climate change summit in Copenhagen in December. Clearly, if this happens then Australia can go to Copenhagen with a benchmark for other nations to consider. In other words, Australia can be a catalyst for the rest of the world.
The main political coaltion group in opposition in the Australian Parliament, comprising the Liberal and National Parties, is opposing the locking in of ETS and carbon emission targets before the Copenhagen meeting, arguing that Australia should wait and see what other nations are doing first. It argues that the legislation that has been proposed by the Australian Government would put this country at a huge economic disadvantage if other countries choose to set lesser targets.
It just seems to me that someone has to make the first move before going to Copenhagen, so why can't it be Australia? After all, the Australian Government made some bold economic moves to avoid the country going into recession duirng the current global financial crisis. Consequently, it is one of a handful of countries (if not the only one) that is not in a recession. Other countries are currently taking note. So why not take the lead in climate change talks, too, with solid climate policies under its belt?
Posted by Dr Stephen Ambrose
I note the objective comments on my blog ("Strategy for Obama? Global Environment vs. Job Loss") posted by Michael Tyler and the conclusions (see Michael’s second & third paragraphs) made. I understand where Michael is coming from but the issues arise because the blog is only a summary. The full article explains the rationale which should offset these concerns as they relate to the discussion of the concepts and principles that drive Figure 1 viz. ‘Principled Negotiation’ (Fisher and Ury) and ‘Multi-Objective Analysis’.
1.0 The starting point for the construction of Scenarios in Figure 1 is the target prescribed/set by a national Government to reduce carbon dioxide emissions over some defined period of time.
2.0 There is a good reason, at this stage, for aiming at the 'lowest achievable carbon dioxide emissions based on existing technology' - whilst acknowledging ongoing research into clean coal technology. The full article makes the following points as to when new technology may be adopted:-
It has been suggested that the application of the Carbon Capture and Safe Geological Storage ("CCS") option may be as far away as 2015. Agreement on any new technology, such as CCS, becoming part of any sustainable solution for climate change should depend on the scientific uncertainty being resolved and validated with a risk management evaluation. Options where scientific uncertainty currently exists (e.g. CCS) would not be used in the scenarios at this point in time. However, as the scientific knowledge base changes, they may be introduced at a later stage of the defined time period that new scenarios are constructed and further evaluated.
3.0 The arguments in paragraph 3 can also be offset by understanding some key elements of ‘Principled Negotiation’ and the ‘Multi-objective Analysis’ process for finding a sustainable solution for climate change.
(i) The scenarios are all multiple use scenarios – constructed across a wide range of "energy mixes" for achieving sustainability - which all have to achieve the target set by Government to reduce emissions. The aim is to find the optimal energy mix for combating climate change and which promotes sustainability.
(ii) In Scenario 1, the regulatory control option of a national emission standard applying uniformly to all point sources of carbon dioxide emissions predominates. There is limited use of the renewable energy and reafforestation options.
(iii) In Scenario 2, there is a steady growth in the use of all energy options over time. The regulatory control option of a national emission standard applies uniformly to coal-fired power stations, high scale industrial emitters (e.g. iron or steel and cement production) and new motor vehicles, only. The reduction in the regulatory control option is balanced by greater use of the renewable energy and reafforestation options.
(iii) In Scenario 3, alternative options to fossil fuels for energy production prevail. The scenario constructed around all locations of land - that are technically and commercially feasible - being used for large scale renewable energy generation, financial incentives for reafforestation programmes provided by Government to accommodate increased reafforestation. The use of fossil fuels by industry as an energy source is prohibited.
(iii) Scenario 4 is the proposed ETS.
The 'Preferred Scenario' (‘the outcome’) is one that most effectively balances the multiple and conflicting objectives for sustainability and which secures as much available value as possible for Government, industry and the community. It may be one of the original set of scenarios evaluated. Alternatively, it could be a new scenario that is constructed based on the best features of all the scenarios evaluated. It will, in all likelihood, comprise a mix of the energy options.
It is clear that all scenarios must meet the prescribed target set by Government for the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Industry must arrive at a national emission standard which achieves the prescribed target for reducing gas emissions in the scenarios. That is, the national emission standard is not an arbitrary and capricious one that is independent of combating climate change - but an integral link for reducing emissions to achieve the prescribed target.
The full article can be downloaded as a pdf file at the following link:
http://tedchristie.blogspot.com/
The best place for freelance projects is freelancing sites. Freelancing sites are the best option for part time home based business and freelance jobs. There are many types of work available at freelancing sites
www.onlineuniversalwork.com