HughBartling.com

Yesterday was the deadline for the US Department of Interior to respond to a law suit waged against them last year by a coalition of environmental NGOs led by the Center for Biological Diversity.  At issue in the suit was the administration’s failure to list the arctic-dwelling polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Various environmental and scientific groups have argued that the fundamental transformations in the circumpolar arctic climate have contributed to dwindling populations of polar bears.  A particular problem is the melting of ice over which the bears travel to find food.  As the ice melts, the populations find the process of procuring food more difficult which contributes to stress and high levels of mortality.

The suit required the US Fish and Wildlife Service to respond to petitions for listing the polar bear as a threatened species, and yesterday’s report [.pdf] acknowledges the validity of the polar bear’s threatened status.

What is significant in the report is the half-hearted acknowledgment that climate change is a factor in the polar bear’s demise.  Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne was a bit evasive on this issue even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.  In a news conference yesterday, Kempthorne both acknowledged that climate change is a factor in the destruction of polar bear habitats, but also claimed that addressing that issue was outside of the mandate of species protection under the Endangered Species Act.  Here is an excerpt from the press conference:

QUESTION: Thanks very much. Secretary, thank you.

In your opening remarks, you pointed out very clearly that the melting sea ice was the cause of this loss of habitat.

And I think you also said, if I remember what you said correctly, that the administration treats climate change very seriously and recognizes the role of greenhouse gases.

In those circumstances, under the 1973 act, is the administration now obligated to act to curb the omission of greenhouse gases? And, if not, why not?

KEMPTHORNE: After the — and this was stated earlier — with the Endangered Species Act — and that’s the element that we’re working with right now — that whole aspect of climate change is beyond the scope of the Endangered Species Act.

Now, as also has been pointed out, with President Bush, with his administration — where there’s been an investment of $29 billion dealing with this issue of climate change.

So in a different venue, there will continue to be discussions, identification of the science, discussions as to what efforts can be done.

But we’re actually seeing that there has been some reductions here in the United States, so we’re going to continue that effort.

But that is outside the scope of this.

What we’re talking about right now with the Endangered Species Act is one species, a polar bear.

And during the next 12 months, it will be an evaluation of that animal, what is happening to its habitat and what sort of mitigations could be brought forward that could be of help to that species.

QUESTION: Thanks so much.

If I may follow up, if you’re saying the act obliges you to trying to protect the habitat, and you’re also admitting that the administration sees a link between climate change and greenhouse gases: Why are you not, therefore, legally obliged to try and deal with those greenhouse gases?

KEMPTHORNE: Well, again, it’s not part of the Endangered Species Act.

Other commentators see this as much more significant than Kempthorne.  Andrew Wetzler of the Natural Resources Defence Council suggests that if the polar bear is indeed listed as an Endangered Species, then the federal government will have to develop a recovery plan which would necessarily have to deal with climate change.

Over the next year, the Department of Interior will continue to study the issue and will allow for a period of public comment before the polar bear is officially designated as threatened.  According to the Fish and Wildlife website dealing with polar bear conservation, the 90 day period for public commentary will likely begin on 11 January 2007.

The Wall Street Journal has an insightful article today on the proliferation of illegal power generation plants and coal mines in the interior regions of China.

While the country’s centralized government tries to manage the factors of economic development, the sheer size of the country and relative autonomy of local officials allows for signifcant transgressions to official policy.  Central to China’s growth over the past decade, or so, has been the expansion of industrial production facilities and the increasing levels of consumption of the country’s growing urban populations as China’s economic focus moves from agriculture to manufacturing.

Manufacturing, of course, requires energy and China’s main source of fossil fuels comes from its large coal deposits.  Given the rising demand for energy and China’s importance in the global marketplace, levels of coal consumption have dramatically increased in recent years.

This has posed a challenge for the Chinese government.  As demand increases, the ability to regulate becomes more problematic and CO2 emissions, foul air, and unsafe working conditions in mines proliferate.

There are no simple policy remedies for reining in these illegal mines and power plants given the fact that they are essential elements fuelling China’s economic growth.  Nevertheless, the environmental and human consequences are significant and likely to cause both domestic and international problems for the Communist government.

The government is trying to resolve its environmental contradictions with some forward-thinking renewable energy projects, such as the new biomass electricity plants opened in Jiangsu and Shangdong provinces as well as renewed calls for more energy efficiency.  Whether these gestures can possibly reduce the country’s coal dependency in the long run is doubtful.

The syndacated columnist Neal Peirce recently reported on an Urban Land Institute forum held in Washington that brought together experts on urbanism to discuss how metropolitan regions in the US should prepare for the significant rates of population gorwth expected in the next several decades.

If any conclusions were drawn at the forum, Peirce suggests that the major one would be an expectation for the continued rise of the megalopolis.  To the extent that the fragmented nature of land use policy and the lack of regional planning are entrenched in US political culture, this seems to be a reasonable prediction.  Settlement patterns will likely follow the “spider-like” corridors defined by interstate highways, so the type of large metropolitan mass one sees between Washington DC & New York, or Los Angeles and San Diego, will be replicated in other areas of the country–particularly in the Sunbelt.

One interesting comment Peirce makes is that many forum participants sense a reinvigorated federal role in metropolitan development.  The feds control enough infrastructure dollars that they can certainly dictate that financing be used in a more sustainable fashion.

It will be interesting to see how the Democratic Congress asserts itself in this regard, with strong sustainability  and urban advocates like Earl Blumenauer having greater power.

Change, of course, does not come without conflict.  The Urban Land Institute is already responding to simplistic critiques of Peirce’s favorable column.

The New York Times has a front page story today on some of the challenges stemming from the United Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism scheme.

CDMs are CO2 emission mitigation projects in “less developed” countries, like China and Brazil, that are financed by “developed” countries in Europe and Asia as part of the Kyoto Protocol.  The main idea behind the scheme is that developed countries can earn credits towards their emission reduction targets by paying for projects in the developing world, where governments and businesses have less surplus capital to invest in mitigation.

The article asserts that many of the CDM projects have been concentrated in Chinese factories designed to minimize the emissions associated with producing artificial refrigerants used in air conditioners.  Ironically, these same refirgerants are responsible for another serious global environmental problem: ozone depeletion.  Thus, the CDMs–while making the emissions regime more efficient–are having the secondary effect of exacerbating ozone depletion.  Analysts quoted in the article speculate that much of the reason for the concentration of money in CDMs is the high return on investment.

The article raises many interesting questions relating to market-based schemes for dealing with environmental issues.  Furthermore, it reflects the long-standing bias at the international level for concentrating development aid in large projects, rather than ones at a small scale.  From the standpoint of the CDMs, a look at the map where the certified emission reduction projects are located shows that more industrialized countries, like China, Brazil and India are the beneficiaries of “clean development” investment.

Areas in sub-Saharan Africa –on the other hand–are receiving very little CDM investment, largely due to the fact that more small-scale mitigation efforts that would be appropriate in the regional context are less likely to attract market interest.

European Union environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas announced today that EU commissioners have come to an agreement to include the intra-European aviation industry in its cap-and-trade emission scheme.

Under the proposal, the EU executive will determine the number of emissions credits available for European airlines. Approximately 90% of the total will be given to airlines with the additional 10% offered in an auction. If airlines are able to voluntarily reduce their emissions to levels less than than their credits, the surpluses can be sold to other industries currently participating in the EU-wide trading scheme set up to meet Kyoto reduction targets.

The aviation proposal still needs approval from member states before going into effect in 2011. The current proposal avoids requiring flights from non-EU carriers flying into Europe to participate in the scheme until 2012.

Some environmentalists argue that the scheme represents a windfall to the aviation industry, since they do not have to purchase the initial credits and can sell them to other polluting industries. Furthermore, some European airlines are already making changes to reduce their emissions voluntarily.

Other critics allege that the aviation industry is less of a polluter than others and should not be singled out for emissions regulation. This, however, ignores the significant problem with aviation emissions–not only do they affect greater damage because of the altitude where emissions take place, carbon emissions from aviation are also dramatically increasing in Europe.