Pecologix Political Ecology Blotter » Legal Frameworks

The Fukushima Nuclear Power Station incident and liability for marine pollution

A. Cherson — Fri, 18 May 2012 23:32:38 +0000

After detailed analysis, the conclusion is that Japan should be responsible for the obligation of immediate notification and since Japan unilaterally discharge the wastes without prior specific permits of other contracting countries, it should also be responsible for the violation of prevention of dumping. Since so far, no material injury has emerged and there would appear to be no culpability as regards the prevention of transboundary harm. Finally, this paper stresses the necessity to develop a worldwide agreement concerning the liability for transboundary harm and to establish an institutional framework for the enforcement of a state’s obligations, and also the great significance of international cooperation between nations and organisations in relation to marine environmental protection.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.01.038

No related posts.

Indigenous Brazilian group certified to trade carbon credits

A. Cherson — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 01:21:23 +0000

[RIO DE JANEIRO] Brazil’s Paiter Suruí community has become the first indigenous group in the country to receive international certification to sell carbon credits in return for protecting and restoring forests in their Amazonian territory.The Suruí community, which numbers around 1300 people, was first contacted by outsiders in 1968. Over the past decade, with assistance from environmental advocates, they have conducted a sophisticated campaign to prove to the world that they are helping to preserve their 248,000 hectare forest territory.Four years ago, they established the Suruí Forest Carbon Project, with a view to selling carbon credits under the so-called REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism.

Indigenous Brazilian group certified to trade carbon credits – SciDev.Net

Global Common Resources and the Just Distribution of Emission Shares: Some Alternative Views

A. Cherson — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:54:08 +0000

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2012.00416.x

No related posts.

Next Steps for Climate Change Mitigation: From the Copenhagen Accord to efficient technology protocols

A. Cherson — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 14:47:36 +0000

It is shown that without binding commitments for Developing Countries, the warming target of 2 °C will be exceeded with a probability above 50%, even if Annex B countries eliminate their emissions. However, moderate commitments of DCs (when they reach sufficient economic development), make the 2 °C scenario feasible. Technology Treansfer Protocols combined with binding emission reduction targets thus provide a mechanism to reduce climate change damages, and may generate significant secondary benefits. For example, the reduced tax-subsidy scenario (RTS20) has 77% to 40% chances to remain below 2 °C of warming and an undiscounted cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) cost of 0.75% relative to baseline (not accounting for the benefits of avoided damages).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.063

Palm-biofuels fail to meet US renewable fuel standards: EPA

A. Cherson — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:55:29 +0000

KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 28, 2012): Palm oil biofuel has failed to meet greenhouse gas saving standards to qualify for the US renewable fuels programme, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said, dealing another blow for southeast Asian producers in search of new markets.The EPA said in a regulatory filing on late Friday that palm oil converted into biofuels in Indonesia and Malaysia cut up to 17% of climate warming emissions, falling short of a 20% requirement to enter the world’s largest energy market.For 2012, the EPA raised annual renewable fuel mandates by 9.4% to 15.2 billion gallons.If the EPA findings are finalised later this year, palm oil producers would now miss out on supplying biomass-based diesel to U.S. oil refiners and importers who currently use canola and soyoil fuels.The agency set a deadline of Feb 27 for public comment on its findings. Malaysian and Indonesian palm oil industry groups have said they will respond to the EPA’s carbon emission calculations on the process of diverting palm oil into fuel tanks.”The Malaysian Palm Oil Board is formulating a response to this development with its own calculations on carbon emissions,” said M.R. Chandran, a leading industry analyst and a consultant to several palm oil firms in Malaysia.”The Americans appear to be moving forwards with land use change calculations while the European Union says there are many scientific uncertainties,” he added.

Palm-biofuels fail to meet US green standards: EPA | theSundaily

Rumination: President Obama’s State of the Union Address 2012 and the Environment

A. Cherson — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:24:07 +0000

Here is what President Obama said about energy and the environment in the State of the Union address of 1/24/2012:

“Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, right now American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock – reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.

Now, what’s true for natural gas is just as true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.

When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it’s hiring workers like Bryan, who said, “I’m proud to be working in the industry of the future.”

Our experience with shale gas, our experience with natural gas shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don’t always come right away. Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.

We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted. Well tonight, I will. I’m directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes. And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, working with us, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history – with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here’s a proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.”

Comment:

It seems the strategy is to expand oil and gas production while also trying to move towards a ‘clean energy’ future. This would be a good plan if it were actually being implemented. The problem is that there is not enough of an effort to shift funds from conventional fossil fuels to renewable energies via a carbon tax being used to support renewable infrastructures. The free market is not going to take care of this because the free market only responds to the apparent pricing of inputs such as labor and energy. The reason many of the domestic renewable energy industries are having trouble competing with China and Germany is because these other countries have adopted much stronger government policies to support those industries. They have adopted them because the political leadership in these places has taken meaningful action. In all fairness to the President, the Congress dropped the ball on energy policy and the environment in 2009 and the executive has been relegated to taking these piecemeal actions on Federal lands and with Federal agencies.

Another problem, which is a kind of deceitful aspect of the address, is in the definition of the term ‘clean energy’: it could mean renewables only or include clean coal or shale gas or enhanced recovery oil or even nuclear power. In fact it is sometime unclear if President Obama means shale gas when he speaks of natural gas. While the President speaks proudly about opening up 75% of the offshore oil and gas resources he also speaks about ending subsidies for oil and gas. Why not withhold these offshore resources until subsidies begin to subside? Then he speaks of directing the development of ‘clean energy’ (there it is again) on enough public land to power three million homes and further that the Navy will purchase enough ‘clean energy’ capacity to power another 250,000 homes. Which clean energy is he speaking about? He also adds that companies drilling for gas on public lands will need to disclose what chemicals they use (a reference to the Halliburton exception for hydrofracking). Why not insist on this disclosure everywhere? So it seems that President Obama uses the term ‘clean energy’ evasively and ambiguously to satisfy all listeners.

The one positive, not mentioned by the President, has been the success of the renewable fuel standard with respect to biodiesel production, but of course this was legislation passed during the tenure of his predecessor and another Congress.