Photo courtesy of Lee Nachtigal's photostream

A slimy, often microscopic organism, algae* is quickly becoming the frequent subject of environmental news. Two stories this week have very different things to say about algae: One says it could help curb climate change by gorging on carbon dioxide. The other says it may have been the killer in the world’s great mass extinctions of species.

A story by Alliance Francaise Presse (AFP) says that algae are gaining notoriety as a potential fuel source–one that could curtail the world’s petroleum addiction. And while much ado has been made over the potential for soy, corn and sugarcane to be the next big alternative fuel crops, algae have a few advantages over the competitors. One is that they are incredibly high in fat, far higher than soybeans. They also grow extremely quickly, and can grow in swamps, stagnant pools, or even wastewater. Another advantage is that, unlike food crops, algae do not compete with the world’s food supply. Algae also have the ability to soak up vast amounts of carbon dioxide. University labs and even corporations are starting to put big money into research, including ExxonMobil. Read the rest of this entry >>

Looks like Europe’s starting to get a little feisty about this whole climate change business. In what seems to be the most direct attack on the United States’ non-progress on fighting climate change, several European leaders are saying that the United States lacks the will to enact any substantial changes leading up to the Copenhagen Conference in December. And, really, they might not be wrong.

The background, as far as I can tell, is this: we all know that the House and Senate are grappling with their respective climate change bills, and there’s a distinct possibility no agreement will be reached in Congress by December. If that is true, then United States Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Sterns will really have his hands tied at the conference in December, as he won’t really be allowed to agree to an international treaty while domestic policy is still undetermined. Because, you know, Congress may decide to set their standards lower than the entire world (think Kyoto). And Europe is not amazingly thrilled with the United States’ non-action.

John Bruton, the European Commission ambassador to the United States, was quoted in the New York Times totally calling America out. Read the rest of this entry >>

brittanyg's Flickr photostream (Creative Commons)

Leading doctors from around the world are urging international leaders to agree to sharpen greenhouse gas emissions cuts as part of the U.N. Climate Summit in order to avert a “global health catastrophe.”

Aside from providing a frightening warning from respected voices in the medical community, the two new reports could help motivate the United States to tackle the upcoming climate talks more quickly since the issue is now tied to the health care debate, currently stalling the action. According to an editorial published in the British Medical Journal and The Lancet this week: Read the rest of this entry >>

So last week the United States stated that it’s very possible that China would not necessarily be held to binding carbon emissions cuts, with Commerce Secretary Gary Locke stating, “Right now, our purpose is really to convey the seriousness of this issue and the need for U.S.-China leadership.” But right after that, Reuters reports, Locke added somewhere else, “But it’ll cost them.” Hmm.

As the United States and other developed countries make costly commitments to address climate change, “developing countries like China must do the same,” Locke told members of the Manufacturing Council, a private sector advisory group.

“They’ve got to step up. They’ve got to pay for the cost of complying with global climate change. They’ve got to invest in energy efficiency and conservation, but also very definitive steps in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” Locke said.

Now, this may not be as volatile statement as one might think, because China can easily point out all the investments it is already making on those fronts. Read the rest of this entry >>

Just yesterday, India said that it would not accept any binding cuts on carbon emissions, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her special envoy on climate change stood silently by. And, in response, Clinton was all like, “It’s cool–wanna buy some nuclear reactors, and also maybe some weapons?”

It’s expected today that Secretary Clinton will sign a cooperation deal with India, and the Washington Post reports that it seems like the United States is going above and beyond that everything’s totally jake.

The nuclear deal would give American companies exclusive rights to sell nuclear power plants at specified locations in India - an opportunity that could be worth $10 billion for U.S. sellers. A second deal, which officials said they hoped would also be ready for signing Monday, is known as an end-use monitoring agreement that would give the U.S. the right to ensure that U.S. arms sold to India are used for their intended purpose and that the technology is not resold or otherwise provided to third countries.
Read the rest of this entry >>

In what might be described as a politically awkward move, India made clear its position that it would not accept binding cuts on carbon emissions today. Why could this be a little awkward? Well, the nation made its announcement while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited a new energy-efficient office building as a public show of the partnership on climate change between the United States and India. Clinton also brought Todd Sterns, her special envoy on climate change. Uncomfortable a little bit? The New York Times says yes.

In a closed-door meeting with Mrs. Clinton after she marveled at the building’s high-tech features, India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said, “There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions.”

“If this pressure is not enough,” he continued, “we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”

After that meeting, Ramesh then handed out his statements to reporters, and reiterated his opposition to cuts publicly, in front of Secretary Clinton and envoy Sterns. Read the rest of this entry >>

There’s been much talk about the United States and China’s attempts to work together to cut greenhouse gases in advance of December’s Copenhagen Convention on climate change, with one of the more recent developments being China stating that it’s not willing to accept any binding emission cuts. Well, the United States has an answer for China, and apparently that response is, “Cool beans.”

Reuters via Planet Ark reports that top American officials have left open the possibility that China would not have to accept any binding cuts to greenhouse gases.

“Right now, our purpose is really to convey the seriousness of this issue and the need for U.S.-China leadership,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told Reuters on a trip to China to boost cooperation on energy conservation and cleaner fuels.

“What the ultimate mechanism may be is to be decided at Copenhagen. But it is something that can not be shirked or delayed,” Locke said… Read the rest of this entry >>