Ballot initiative targets California climate-change law

Independent producers are watching California Republican Assemblyman Dan Logue’s efforts toward a ballot initiative to suspend California's “Global Warming Solutions Act.” Logue hopes to get the initiative on the November ballot.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 32 in 2006 amid fanfare about what Schwarzenegger calls California’s leadership role in fighting climate change. AB 32 requires that, starting in 2012, the state of California must reduce its carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The California Independent Petroleum Association says Logue currently has a bill, AB 118, to repeat AB 32 through the state legislative process, but AB 118 is not expected to get approval by lawmakers.

“Debate of the merits of the science used to attribute climate change to carbon sources, delay in congressional action in DC, and continued poor economic conditions in California have brought uncertainty to the future of a California only stand-alone program,” CIPA said in its Feb. 1 Monday Morning Report email.

A ballot initiative, once approved by the Secretary of State, has 85 days to collect 433,000 valid signatures of registered voters to reach the November ballot. The proposed initiative calls for suspension of AB 32 until the unemployment rate falls below 5.5%. California’s unemployment rate was about 12% in early February.

This issue of state vs. federal government issuing climate-change law goes beyond California, and it’s one that much of the US oil and gas industry will be watching closely.

Doomsday Clock reset to give world additional minute

People working in the oil and gas industry tend to be optimists, sometimes very big optimists such as the early wildcatters who repeatedly dared to risk their livelihood on a hunch. These are solution-driven folks who tend to be very resilient.

So it with some amusement that I tell my blog followers about a Jan. 14 release out of New York entitled “Doomsday Clock moves 1 minute from Midnight.” They mean 1 more minute as in 6 minutes instead of 5 minutes. Midnight represents the end of civilization.

“Citing a more hopeful state of world affairs in relation to the twin threats posed by nuclear weapons and climate change, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (BAS) is moving the minute hand of its famous Doomsday Clock 1 minute away from midnight. It is now 6 minutes to midnight.”

Created in 1947 by BAS, the Doomsday Clock has been adjusted only 18 times. I respect BAS and its Board of Sponsors, which includes 19 Nobel Laureates. Granted, the BAS is being more optimistic by giving civilization another minute.

But I wonder where the hands might be on a clock created by all the industry groups that organize the Offshore Technology Conference every May in Houston.

Scientists within oil and gas companies are working hard on protecting the environment and addressing climate change questions. Although they might not want to address the nuclear threat issue, I believe they would give the world more than 6 minutes.

The language of climate change

Journalists and readers alike are learning some lingo formerly used primarily by climatologists. Many people’s vocabularies are expanding (mine included) while following news coverage and commentaries about climate change and global warming.

One example is dangerous anthropogenic interference (DAI). I learned the phrase while reading a book by Elizabeth Kolbert entitled “Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change.”

Kolbert explains that DAI does not refer to any specific disaster but rather it involves a range of climate change scenarios that could result in mass extinction.

“The disintegration of one of the planet’s remaining ice sheets is often held up as the exemplary catastrophe,” Kolbert wrote. “DAI is therefore understood to refer not to the end of the process, but to the beginning of it-–the point at which its arrival becomes unavoidable.”

So far, scientists have yet to determine what carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere would represent DAI. Scientific debate about global warming involves countless technical questions. Sometimes, it seems to me that constructive debate gets sidetracked by semantics.

I can see this happening easily with DAI because many people disagree about whether humans are the dominant force triggering climate change. Of all the people who attended the recent Copenhagen meeting, I wonder how many participants would describe global warming as “a natural process.”

Natural gas to get a voice at Copenhagen climate meeting

Some participants at the Copenhagen climate meeting will get a chance to hear about the potential for natural gas to play a role in the move to a low-carbon economy.

American Clean Skies Foundation (ACSF), the UN Foundation, and the Worldwatch Institute are staging a Dec. 12 event: "Natural Gas, Renewables, and Efficiency: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy."

Confirmed speakers include Aubrey K. McClendon, ACSF chairman and chief executive officer of Cheasapeake Energy Corp.

Compared with coal, gas allows a 50-70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, depending on the application, event organizers said. The discussion, to be held at the Danish Society of Engineers building, will focus on actions to replace high-emitting fuels with gas, increase energy efficiency, and increase the use of renewable energy.

Since its founding in 2007 the not-for-profit ACSF has worked toward advancing US energy independence and a cleaner, low-carbon environment through expanded use of gas and renewables.

Guest list for Copenhagen climate meeting grows

The White House says President Obama plans to attend the United Nations climate meeting in Copenhagen as a side stop while en route to pick up his Nobel Prize in Oslo.

Scott Segal, legal partner at Bracewell & Giuliani, notes that direct presidential involvement was crucial to passing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990s. Segal believes involvement from the Oval Office will prove to be a key element again if anything on climate policy is to become US law.

“As to whether Obama’s attendance will transform the results in Copenhagen, it seems unlikely,” Segal said. “While speaking softly, China and India still seem steadfastly opposed to strict (emissions) targets for emerging nations, and progress on the major sticking points across the board remains slow.”

He does note that Obama's involvement in Copenhagen ultimately might help nudge along climate policy debate in Washington, DC.

I tend to agree with Segal. After so much fanfare and anticipation, it’s going to be hard for the Copenhagen meeting to fulfill broad, public expectations. Personally, I expect to see volumes written by the general media following the meeting, regardless of what happens.

What actually happens in Washington on climate after Copenhagen could prove as important to many oil and gas companies as whatever might happen in Copenhagen.

London bird sanctuary installs wind turbine

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) supports wind power development in correctly sited locations. To demonstrate that, RSPB installed a small-scale wind turbine at one of its own nature preserves, Rainham Marshes east of London, known primarily for its wading birds.

The organization said renewable energy, including wind power, can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The RSPB, a British charitable organization, often is most visual when objecting to wind turbine proposals. But RSPB’s web site said the group never opposes wind farm developments that are designed and sited to avoid damaging sensitive wildlife.

The Rainham Marshes wind turbine, together with solar technology, is expected to provide enough energy to power the visitor center, minimizing its carbon footprint.
RSPB sees climate change as the biggest threat to global wildlife in the 21st century.

“Onshore wind is an important weapon in the battle against global climate change—a problem that, if left unchecked, will result in the extinction of millions of species of birds, plants, and animals across the world as well as costing the lives of millions of people,” RSPB said.

It's hard to replace energy infrastructure

Energy infrastructure is not easily replaced or retired from service, notes a Baker Institute report entitled “Sustainable US Policy Options to Address Climate Change: Highlights of the Debate.” The Baker Institute released the report in June outlining conclusions from climate change conferences that it organized on its campus within Rice University in Houston.

The 15-page report contains a lot of detailed information, yet it’s the infrastructure sentence that caught my attention. Despite extensive discussions nationwide about emerging climate policy, I am waiting to hear more about how the logistics of energy infrastructure will fit within any new policy.

Can the fuels of the future be distributed and marketed using existing refineries, pipelines, and service stations? This is where science and technology development will prove to be key, and it’s where the involvement of oil companies will prove to be key.

Steve Koonin, chief scientist at BP PLC, participated in a Baker Institute conference on climate policy last year. He said the need for adoption of climate policy is urgent because energy infrastructure is not easily replaced or retired.

“Apart from universality, greenhouse gas policies must also be timely—one of the defining characteristics of the energy infrastructure is its longevity,” Koonin said. “Power plants last 50 years, automobiles last 20 years, and buildings in which half the world’s energy is used last about 100 years.”

He noted future GHG emissions are being locked in for decades by infrastructure built today. Hence, the largest international corporations must be involved in GHG reductions and in figuring out the logistics for the fuels of the future.

“Materiality means that large corporations must be actively involved in GHG reductions, since it is through them that societies get things done, at least in the developed world,” Koonin said.

Copenhagen to address tragedy of the commons

Lately, my e-mail box receives a lot of items containing the word Copenhagen in reference to the United Nations Climate Change conference scheduled there during Dec. 7-18.

US and Chinese leaders met in Beijing last month to discuss energy and the environment in efforts toward reaching some cooperative pact on climate change. The two countries are the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide.

Climate scientists are calling for a collective international political will to implement changes, saying climate models show human influence on climate has exceeded the natural variability of climate change since about 1970. Scientists frequently cite a phrase: the tragedy of the commons.

The typical example of a commons is to imagine a pasture open to all herdsmen who try to keep as many cattle as possible. The arrangement works for awhile, but eventually somebody adds too many cows, resulting in overgrazing. All the herdsmen suffer.

Today, countries are getting together and talking about the possible worldwide consequences of burning fossil fuels. The commons in this case is the atmosphere.

I expect to see a lot more e-mail items this year containing the word Copenhagen. What remains to be seen is how all this talk might translate into future business dealings for oil and gas companies.

Climate change bill could escalate lawsuits

Oil and gas companies face the potential of more environmental lawsuits being filed against them depending upon the fate of the US House of Representatives climate change bill, HR 2454.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) wrote the lengthy bill. An early draft version would have given citizens broader standing than ever to sue the government and air polluters.

The draft said that essentially anyone who “reasonably expects to suffer” a harm attributable to government inaction could have filed a citizen suit. It defined harm as any consequence of air pollution, including climate change.

Attorneys with Mayer Brown LLP report the far-reaching citizen suit provision was dropped out of the bill before it was introduced. But HR 2454 still contains a citizen suit provision consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

John S. Hahn, a Mayer Brown partner in Washington, believes the potential exists for energy companies to face more environmental lawsuits as a result of climate change legislation. But he questions how fast that legislation might get implemented.

“The environmentalists want everybody to believe it will happen this year,” Hahn said of congressional passage of a comprehensive climate change law. “It may not happen this year.”

The CAA already is complicated, and the Waxman-Markey bill runs over 900 pages. The Waxman-Markey bill opens the CAA to modifications. This process could produce a vague US greenhouse gas regulation program that generates yet more questions than answers.

Mexican official joining Climate Action Reserve board

A US private nonprofit group focused on addressing climate change is broadening its international representation.

Adrián Fernández Bremauntz, president of the National Institute of Ecology in Mexico, was elected to the Climate Action Reserve board of directors.

Within weeks, Mexico's environment ministry is expected to release its Special Program on Climate Change detailing how Mexico plans to achieve its goal of cutting its emissions output 50% below 2000 levels by 2050.

Fernandez has served in senior positions at the Mexican Environment Secretariat and also was a member of the Bureau for Latin America at the Commission for Sustainable Development.

The Climate Action Reserve brings together governments, environmental interests, and business groups to ensure environmental benefit, integrity, and transparency in greenhouse gas emissions accounting and reduction.

The Climate Action Reserve is parent to three programs, the California Climate Action Registry, Climate Action Reserve and Center for Climate Action. More information about it can be found at www.climateactionreserve.org.

Could Australia become a green superpower?

A climate change scientist suggests Australia could take the lead among developed countries in promoting renewable energy.

Barry Brook recently wrote an online column saying Australia has plenty of wind, geothermal, and solar resources to move away from fossil fuels. He is director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.

He compares Australia's opportunity to develop its solar resources to the economic transformation the world experienced with widespread production and exportation of Middle Eastern oil.

“When the Seven Sisters oil companies exploited that resource the global energy system changed forever,” Brook recently wrote. “Today, Australia has all the makings of a global green energy superpower.”

Compared with debate about peak oil and peak coal, Brook believes scarcity is not a problem for renewable energy sources. He notes the costs for renewable energy are dropping because of rapid technological development.

Carbon trading could provide tens of billions of dollars to invest in cleaner energy sources, Brook advocates. Whether the Australian government will promote this green superpower idea remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen whether any developed country actually can move its economy away from fossil fuels any time soon.

Brook’s full comments can be found in a column published by News Ltd. Australia.
(http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24430472-5007146,00.html).