Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA)’s chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee could bring sweeping changes to legislation affecting climate change and the energy sector.

The sweeping change which came to D.C this November has certainly been felt in the House Democratic Caucus, where on Nov 28, John Dingell (D-MI), one of the longest serving chairs of the Energy and Commerce Committee was narrowly defeated by Waxman. This represented a blow to the seniority system of chairmanships which has been the rule in the Democratic Caucus for decades now - and the new chairmanship f this influential committee may represent many changes coming down the pike for the 40% of the U.S. economy whose activities are regulated by the committee.

These sectors include the health care, pharmaceutical and biotech energies as well as the energy sector. The committee also has regulatory oversight for the FDA, the SEC and a number of other federal agencies. Waxman has a long track record as an aggressive reformer as chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform…

Read the rest of this entry »

Read more about GHG Emissions Credit Trading

Sure enough, almost instantly after Republican presidential nominee John McCain introduced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, environmental groups began addressing the governor a friend of “big oil” who puts drilling “above the environment” and enlarged exploration above added protections for endangered species.

However, Palin contends that she has responsibly encouraged projects to exhume fossil fuels the rest of the country urgently requires. Palin backs up drilling in areas of Alaska that environmental groups vehemently oppose and she supports tapping the state’s natural gas reserves and shipping the cleaner burning fuel to the rest of the country.

She has challenged efforts by the Bush administration to list the polar bear as an endangered species fearing curbs on oil and gas drilling, yet her hometown is not far from the site of the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill that impacted fisherman.

But possibly raising the eyebrows of environmental radicals most were Palin’s comments during a recent magazine interview saying she does not consider global climate change is being caused by man-made activities despite scientific research showing the burning of fossil fuels are a leading contributor. A draft report released in January of this year by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation shows oil and gas development by the major oil companies as the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in Alaska.

All of which raises an crucial question for November: What do voters expect a governor from an energy producing state — especially one that has some of the largest reserves of fossil fuels beneath the surface — to do when wading through an energy-rich resources landscape littered with environmental minefields? And what do they expect from the next administration when it comes to tapping resources in wilderness areas?

Despite the current global crush for oil, natural gas may be where Palin leaves her biggest footprint in Alaska when it comes to energy development. The North Slope also contains two of the largest natural gas fields in the country - a vital resource for homes that heat with the fuel during the winter considering the United States. Devours about 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year, according to the Department of Energy. More recently, politicians on the left and right have mobilized around natural gas as a better alternative to burning coal because it produces fewer emissions.

During her recent interview when asked about global climate change impacts, Palin said the “changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location” but added “I’m not one though who would ascribe it to being man-made.”

Yet in 2007, Palin created a climate change sub-cabinet office to counsel her on greenhouse gas issues and global climate change. A review of the administrative order creating the office, however, never mentions the causes of climate change but says “scientific evidence shows many areas of Alaska are experiencing a warming curve.”

This year voters may have to decide conclusively wherever they stand on the energy-environment divide. As voters ask themselves what an Alaskan governor should do when confronted with oil and gas reserves underfoot and what shelters animal populations and the environment need, they will at the same time have to decide what they are conformable to do without.

Read more about GHG Emissions Credit Trading

In the recently held G-8 summit, US President George Bush praised the move by G-8 leaders to rally behind and completely support a strategy for a global climate-change accord. The G-8 nations are the U.S., Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia.

Read more about Future of Emissions Trading Markets: SO2, NOX, CO2, Mercury

Climate change is any long-term significant change in the “average weather” that a given region experiences. Average weather may include average temperature, precipitation and wind patterns. It involves changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere over durations ranging from decades to millions of years. These changes can be caused by dynamic process on Earth, external forces including variations in sunlight intensity, and more recently by human activities.

However, according to many environmentalists argue that the summit’s unclear vows to work towards lowering greenhouse gas emissions by a drastic 50 percent by 2050 does not appear to be legally binding and can be interpreted in various ways.

At the summit, President Bush whole-heartedly supported the broad emissions-reduction goal. In a statement, President Bush reiterated his stance that further progress is going to depend on the further development of clean energy technologies. Developing nations, he said, will need assistance so they can become “good stewards of the environment.”

This was President Bush’s last summit with the G-8 leaders and he was all praises for the group’s attempts at combating global climate change. His main demand on a climate change accord was that developing countries who have a high rate of energy consumption, need to be included in some requirements along with the major industrialized democracies that make up the Group of Eight. However, developing nations such as China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and South Africa have rejected the option of being part of the 50-percent reduction goal. It was the first time at a G-8 summit that the G-8 heads of state sat down together with these developing countries to discuss the problem of global warming. According to the heads of G-8, developing countries are today responsible for releasing nearly 80 percent of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

In a move quite opposed to what President Bush first supported in his first term, at this summit he heartily backed the broad emissions-reduction goal stated by his summit partners. In his first term, President Bush firmly disputed scientists’ assertions about global warming.

In a statement, the President stated, “We made clear, and the other nations agreed, that they must also participate in an ambitious goal. With an interim goal, with interim plans to enable the world to successfully address climate change. And we made significant progress toward a comprehensive approach.”

Overall, US President Bush was instrumental in expanding on the global warming discussions beyond the G-8 membership. However, he won’t be in office long enough to witness the next chapter of the controversial climate change debate play out.

The discussion on global warming is a run-up to U.N.-led efforts to craft a new climate change accord at a meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009. That new accord would succeed the Kyoto Protocol that starts to expire in 2012.

Read more about Future of Emissions Trading Markets: SO2, NOX, CO2, Mercury