Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate

In this video, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outlines the MEF as a preparatory group for the Copenhagen climate conference.

IRENA: Governing (Renewable) Energy

Last week, a new and exciting step towards global energy governance took shape with official establishment of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). An initiative driven by the governments of Germany, Denmark and Spain, IRENA is expected to become the leading international institution exclusively responsible for the promotion of renewable energy adoption, research and technology sharing among a diverse group of industrialized and developing countries.

Over the course of last nine months, a series of international meetings and workshops were convened to chart out IRENA’s ambitious mandate leading into the 26 January 2009 founding conference in Bonn, Germany. Over 150 national or institutional representatives participated in the preparatory sessions towards the production of the Statute of IRENA, which will act as the foundational document of the burgeoning international energy body.

The Statute outlines IRENA’s goal to become the main driving force in promoting a rapid transition towards the widespread and sustainable use of renewable energy on a global scale. In support of these efforts, IRENA will;

… provide practical advice and support for both industrialised and developing countries, help them improve their regulatory frameworks and build capacity. The agency will facilitate access to all relevant information including reliable data on the potential of renewable energy, best practices, effective financial mechanisms and state-of-the-art technological expertise. (Source: About IRENA)

IRENA has emerged amid frustrations with decision-making in the International Energy Agency (IEA), its disinterest in the promotion of renewable energies, and its limited regulatory reach. While the IEA is an influential energy body – sometimes seen as the oil consuming countries’ counter-balance to OPEC - some members (and non-members) have expressed discontent with its lack of concern for climate issues and the introduction of alternatives. 

With an initial budget of €25m, IRENA will spend the next year choosing a headquarters and secretariat as well as pushing national ratifications before launching full operations in 2010. Its supporters are quite optimistic on the agency’s future relevance and influence. Hermann Scheer is reported to have said, “Irena is the single-most important step for a speedy global introduction of renewable energies. It will give an enormous push to the use of renewables around the globe.” As president of the World Council for Renewable Energy, Scheer has worked to turn the rapid groundswell of attention on climate issues into support for a legal, standards-setting body.

Initial support for IRENA is quite impressive. However, conspicuously absent from the 75 original signatories are G8 countries Canada, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States; and global South leaders such as Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. Notably, membership of this ‘coalition of the green’ (so far) boasts strong connections among European and African states (see map); and, most shockingly, a healthy participation of OPEC, with Algeria, Iran, Nigeria and United Arab Emirates signing onto the Statute. Supporters of the process have included smaller states such as Iceland (pop. 300,000), Mali (GDP $530/cap.), Montenegro (est. 2006), and São Tomé and Principe (950km2).

Geographic distribution of IRENA membership.

What IRENA has done better than other organization is to reach across the industrialized–developing country divide (aka North-South), constructing early legitimacy from a diverse constituency. Other initiatives toward global energy governance have not escaped the ‘club’ mentality, constraining themselves with like-mindedness and self-interest. First and foremost, the IEA (as an agency of the exclusive OECD) is comprised of a wealthy, industrialized, energy import-dependent membership, and as such not representative of the global energy system. It functions solely in support of its members, supplying detailed information and policy analysis on energy market trends - the IEA is not an advocacy or governing body, thereby sustaining a status-quo stance on some of the world’s most pressing energy challenges. 

A fairly recent initiative, the G8-oriented Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change (or MEM-16), has attempted to offer palatable climate change policies for resisters of the Kyoto Protocol. Driven mainly by conservative governments who fear environmental protections as threats to economic output (including IEA members United States, Australia, Japan and Canada), the MEM-16 has so far offered only weak prescriptive measures and little in the way of substantive climate policy. Also among the institutions addressing energy is the NATO security alliance, working to secure the international petroleum transportation infrastructure. A special division of NATO is slowly implementing surveillance and protection of critical shipping routes and pipelines.

IRENA is different as it appreciates that while energy is the lifeblood of all economic activity; a) dependence on exhaustable resources and destructive technologies does not suit long-term economic interests, and b) we’re all in it together. The institution benefits from forward thinking - next-generation environmentalism – that is able to adopt favourable policies that can benefit firms and the market at the same time as protecting the environment. It has also placed developing countries at the core, understanding that there are great opportunities for renewable energy to provide sustainable development. However, some structural and functional challenges lie ahead. On the former, IRENA lacks the participation of the major emerging economies (BRICSAM and others) who are largely responsible for recent increase in fossil feul consumption, and arguably the countries most in need of alternative energies. On the latter, any international institution is only as good as the compliance of its membership to match national policy with international agreements. Thus far, the record of compliance on climate policies is dismal. 

Meanwhile, the biggest stumbling block for IRENA’s success remains the absence of a U.S. signatory. The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) actively participated in the preparatory meetings and has placed pressure on Washington to join IRENA. There are early signs that the new administration may be listening. U.S. President Barack Obama’s environmental memorandum (also of 26 January, see Climate CHANGE: Obama-style) provides much anticipation that membership may be possible in the coming months. His official request of the newly minted transport secretary to enforce the EPA’s energy efficiency standards and to lift federal restrictions on alternative energy sourcing are both positive indications of an administration willing to engage in mature environmental policy. As the U.S. prepares its climate diplomacy towards the December 2008 UNFCCC in Copenhagen (likely directed by new energy secretary Steven Chu), it will be interesting to see how other leaders/governments respond to the initiatives of the magnetic president.

The moral leadership demonstrated by IRENA’s drivers have brought the institution to fruition. From here on, it will be its capability to deliver action that will seal IRENA’s fate as either an ineffectual, idealistic body or a lodestar for global energy governance. What IRENA has proven so far is that there is widespread interest in casting off the ‘business-as-usual’ approach to international energy challenges, and to introduce innovative mechanisms for collaborative policy development, technology upgrading and knowledge sharing. Expectations are very high – it’s now up to IRENA to deliver.

Climate CHANGE: Obama-style

On 26 January 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama sent a clear indication that he would no longer accept status quo policy on the environment. By Presidential Memoranda, he erased the Bush administration’s historic refusal to allow California and more than a dozen other states to impose strict controls on exhaust emissions. He also ordered the transport department to raise the average fuel efficiency of the US automobile fleet to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, beginning with 2011 models. Below is the full-text of the memorandum.

In the year that the world works towards new environmental standards and emissions-reductions, this early indication that the Obama administration takes its climate obligations seriously is a good sign for us all.

——————-

Source: www.whitehouse.gov

MEMORANDUM FOR

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SUBJECT: The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

In 2007, the Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). This law mandates that, as part of the Nation’s efforts to achieve energy independence, the Secretary of Transportation prescribe annual fuel economy increases for automobiles, beginning with model year 2011, resulting in a combined fuel economy fleet average of at least 35 miles per gallon by model year 2020.  On May 2, 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Model Years 2011-2015, 73 Fed. Reg. 24352. In the notice and comment period, the NHTSA received numerous comments, some of them contending that certain aspects of the proposed rule, including appendices providing for preemption of State laws, were inconsistent with provisions of EISA and the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

Federal law requires that the final rule regarding fuel economy standards be adopted at least 18 months before the beginning of the model year (49 U.S.C. 32902(g)(2)). In order for the model year 2011 standards to meet this requirement, the NHTSA must publish the final rule in the Federal Register by March 30, 2009. To date, the NHTSA has not published a final rule.

 

Therefore, I request that:

 

(a)  in order to comply with the EISA requirement that fuel economy increases begin with model year 2011, you take all measures consistent with law, and in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency, to publish in the Federal Register by March 30, 2009, a final rule prescribing increased fuel economy for model year 2011;

 

(b)  before promulgating a final rule concerning model years after model year 2011, you consider the appropriate legal factors under the EISA, the comments filed in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the relevant technological and scientific considerations, and to the extent feasible, the forthcoming report by the National Academy of Sciences mandated under section 107 of EISA; and

 

(c)  in adopting the final rules in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, you consider whether any provisions regarding preemption are consistent with the EISA, the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA and other relevant provisions of law and the policies underlying them.

 

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

 

The Secretary of Transportation is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

 

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 26, 2009

—————

Klare on Carter Doctrine

Perhaps my most popular post so far was my discussion of a new multilateral Carter Doctrine, and the troubling involvement of agencies like NATO in protecting oil trading routes and transportation. I wanted to share a very insightful video that I recently found on YouTube on Peak Oil and the securitization of energy resources.

Michael T. Klare is the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum. In this video, he discusses the militarization of the oil U.S. oil addiction and its impact on American foreign policy and legitimacy as a positive actor in the international system.