A World-wide Climate Agreement by the End of 2015

Nations around the world are filing notice of their proposed contributions for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in the next 10-15 years, or more.  This is being done ahead of the next (21^st) United Nations “Conference of the Parties” (COP) that convenes starting the end of November 2015.  Since the 2009 COP in Copenhagen nations have struggled unsuccessfully to agree to a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol (KP) of 1997, which expired in 2012.  Recently the negotiators have moved toward a proposed agreement based on voluntary, but verifiable, contributions toward emissions abatement, instead of the top-down imposition of limits as was done in the KP.  In addition, the agreement, which should be finalized in the 21^st COP, will apply to all nations, without excluding the developing nations as the KP did. This affords the best chance for agreeing to worldwide reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

 

The consequences of man-made global warming are widespread , affecting our social and economic wellbeing at a personal level of experience, as well as regionally and nationally.  Various regions have been struck by high tide flooding, drought leading to sociopolitical instability or to reduced agricultural yields, loss of agricultural lands and extreme forest wildfires , by way of example.  President Obama has identified global warming as a serious threat to U.S. national security .

Global warming arises largely from burning fossil fuels for energy, producing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO₂) as a waste product.  The fraction remaining in the atmosphere, about two-thirds, retains excess heat from sunlight (the greenhouse effect), leading to the examples of harms cited above.

The current outlook for CO₂ emissions from burning fossil fuels has been analyzed up to 2035 and beyond by the International Energy Agency (IEA).  It finds that in the absence of worldwide action to abate emissions the world will not succeed in restricting the increase in global average temperature to 2ºC (3.6ºF) or less above the levels from before the industrial revolution (see Details at the end of this post).  This result, and others like it, is an urgent call to action.

The 21^st COP, meeting in Paris starting late November 2015, is considering a draft agreement which calls on all United Nations (U. N.) members voluntarily to commit to emission reductions of their own formulation, subject to reporting and verification.  The commitment of the U. S., for example, calls for quantitative reductions in emissions from the American energy economy (see Details).  Examples of commitments from two developing countries, China and India, however, are only to lower the rate of increase of their emissions over the next decade or more, rather than to reduce numerically their GHG emissions (see Details). 

Analysis.  The IEA has shown that without embarking on a rigorous plan to reduce GHG emissions the world will not succeed in keeping the overall long-term global average temperature increase to 2ºC (3.6ºF) or less from the start of the industrial revolution.  Many other analyses by independent research organizations reach a similar conclusion.  These findings represent a critical call to action by the nations of the world to undertake meaningful emission reductions.

The 21^st COP will consider a draft agreement when it meets at the end of 2015 to achieve such reductions (see Details).  In distinction to the terms of the KP and later proposals to extend its terms, the current draft treaty does not distinguish between developed and developing countries, nor does it assign defined reductions in emissions to every nation.  Rather, each nation is to submit voluntary commitments generated internally for the furtherance of the overall objective, in a verifiable fashion.

Commitments by all nations that have submitted them are available here.  This post considers commitments by the U. S., China and India (see Details).  The U. S. provided sound numerical objectives for actual reductions in emissions.  In contrast, China and India have long been fundamentally committed to expanding their economies, using primarily fossil fuel-derived energy, without serious regard for the environmental consequences of their actions (see Details).  China began initiatives in recent years to lower its energy intensity (i.e., increase the efficiency of energy use by using less energy per unit of gross domestic product).  India has subscribed to similar objectives only within the past year or so (see Details). 

China and India pledge only to reduce the rate of increase of their emissions, seeking to reach a maximum annual rate by 2030 or sooner.  These commitments may be disappointing for policymakers seeking more aggressive reductions in emissions, but in each case they represent a significant change from the earlier policies of these nations of unrestrained growth based on fossil fuels.  These commitments by two major developing countries constitute a significant departure from the structure of the KP, and may lead to more aggressive commitments for reduction of emissions in later years.

It is the intention at the 21^st COP to finalize the draft agreement and issue it for ratification by each member nation of the U. N.  In the U. S. this will likely trigger a major political struggle involving the current and next Presidents, and Congress.  The U. S. rejected ratifying the KP at least partly because opponents felt that exclusion of developing countries from its terms while the U. S. would have been subjected to emission limits would have put the U. S. at a competitive disadvantage in world trade.  If the final agreement produced by the 21^st COP incorporates the universal voluntary commitment framework of the draft agreement, the argument that the U. S. would be at a disadvantage would no longer be valid.  It is hoped that the U. S. will preserve its leadership role in the world’s global warming policymaking and ratify the final agreement as specified here.

Details

 The IEA’s World Energy Outlook (WEO) for 2013 analyzed the contributions to CO₂ emissions from the mature industrialized countries of North America, Europe and Asia (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; OECD) and the developing countries (non-OECD), historically since 1900, and projecting by models from 2013 to 2035.  The results are shown in the graphic below, in the left panel.

 

Historical and future projected total accumulated CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere.  LEFT: Breakdown of contributions to the total emitted CO₂ from industrialized (OECD) countries (blue) and developing (non-OECD) countries (orange) for four historical time periods up to 2012, and projected emissions, assuming no actions are taken to limit them, for 2013-2035.  Gt, gigatonnes (billion tonnes).  RIGHT: A circle representing the maximum permissible worldwide emissions of CO₂ that keeps the global average temperature increase from the industrial revolution below 2ºC (3.6ºF).  Historical accumulation 1750-2011 (orange), amount projected for 2012-2035 (gold), and projected emission portion remaining (gray) in the limited CO₂ budget permitted.

Source: Adapted from International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2013  

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/pressmedia/recentpresentations/LondonNovember12.pdf  (Slide 5).

 

In the graphic, left panel, the first three bars are for 30 years, the fourth bar is for 23 years and the fifth bar, for projected emissions, is for 22 years.  Historical and projected emissions, assuming no actions are taken to limit them, increase dramatically as time passes.  Emissions from the industrialized world (OECD) level off after 1959, however, whereas those from developing countries (non-OECD), including major contributions from China and India, have surged and are projected to continue rising dramatically to 2035.

Climate scientists have calculated the maximum total accumulation of CO₂ in the atmosphere that would limit the increase in the global average temperature to 2ºC (3.6ºF) or less since the industrial revolution began.  This amount is represented as the circle in the right panel of the graphic above.  The sectors show that if no constraints are put on the world’s emissions most of the emissions budgeted to preserve the temperature limit will have been committed by 2035 (combining the orange and gold sectors).  That leaves a presumably unattainably narrow sector (gray) of emissions in the years after 2035 to stay below the established temperature limit.  The graphic concludes “emissions [are] off track [i.e., historical and projected emissions are too high] in the run-up to the 2015 climate summit in [Paris,] France”, taking place at the end of the year, to limit the temperature rise.

It is critical that the nations of the world reach agreement on limiting emissions at the Paris conference.  The annual COP conferences, involving all member states of the United Nations (U. N.), have so far failed to reach agreement on limiting emissions (and other related issues).  This is at least partly because the Convention governing the U. N. meetings enshrines the opposing points of view that nations of the world address climate change “on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.   This phrasing reflects the concerns that “the developed countr[ies] should take the lead in combating climate change” and that the “specific needs and special circumstances of developing countr[ies]…should be given full consideration”.  

The Kyoto Protocol incorporated this distinction: it applied only to industrialized countries, while excusing developing countries from being held to any emissions limits.  Developing countries point to the large historical contributions to emissions from industrialized countries (see the graphic, left panel), and feel they should be allowed to industrialize in the same way.  In contrast, industrialized countries recognize that industrialization in the developing countries will add significant new CO₂ contributions to the atmosphere (see the graphic, left panel, projection to 2035), to the world’s detriment. 

COP21 will consider finalizing a new draft treaty for approval.  The most important new departure is that, in contrast to KP, which imposed numerical emissions limits for each covered nation in the treaty, the new agreement invites voluntary yet verifiable commitments from every nation for its reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.  

Three Examples of Voluntary Commitments.  The U.S. is a major contributor to the emissions from industrialized countries.  China, a developing country, is currently the nation with the highest GHG emissions in the world; it is responsible for a major portion of the historical 1990-2012 and projected 2013-2035 emissions shown in the graphic.  India, also a developing country, is increasing its fossil fuel-driven energy production at similar (high) annual rates as China, although its absolute numerical production is much lower.  The voluntary commitments of these three nations are summarized here.

U. S.  The U. S. is committing to reduce its emissions from the level of 2005 by 26-28% by 2025, with best efforts made to achieve 28% reduction .  President Obama has already put in place several policies that will contribute to meeting this goal.  This program places the U. S. on a longer-term path to achieve an economy-wide reduction in GHG emissions of 80% by 2050.

China had been a strong proponent of the arguments presented by developing countries summarized above.  Its reconsidered goals were outlined in the summit meeting between Presidents Xi Jinping and Obama in 2014.  China’s emission rates continue growing because it is adding new fossil fuel-driven electric generating plants to power its expanding economy.  Its goal, confirmed for the U. N.’s 21^st COP, is that the annual rate of GHG emissions will reach a maximum by 2030 and possibly sooner, and then decline.  China’s commitment to slow the growth of its emissions was not specified in numerical terms.  As part of this initiative China expects to use fossil fuel-derived energy more efficiently, including increasing the share of energy derived from renewable sources to 20% by 2030, and to expand its forested lands.  It is to be emphasized that China’s numerical rate of emissions will not begin declining until about 2030.

India has been rapidly expanding its energy production from fossil fuels, especially coal.  As recently as 2014, Prakash Javadekar, India’s minister of environment, forests and climate change, rejected constraining its growth and reducing its emission rate .  India’s first responsibility, he stated, is to reduce poverty and expand the country’s economy, rather than reduce GHG emissions.  In this regard India’s approach resembles the earlier Chinese goals.  In a change from this policy, India’s commitment for the 21^st COP intends to increase its energy efficiency by 33 to 35% from its 2005 level by 2030.  This program includes a goal of expanding non-fossil fuel-derived energy (currently at a very low level) by 40% by 2030, relying on foreign assistance.  In addition it will add new forest lands to help remove CO₂ from the air.  It is noteworthy that India, like China, does not state a numerical amount of actual reduction in its rate of emissions, only a slowdown in the rate of increase of its emissions.

© 2015 Henry Auer

India Disdains a Global Approach to Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Before the Industrial Revolution the lives of people all around the globe were more or less similar.  The economic basis was largely agrarian; a large fraction of people lived off the land or close to it.  Importantly, the main sources of energy to help power farming, much other economic activity and transportation were living beasts, and movement of people, goods and information was no faster than animals or ships could carry them.  Candles and oil lamps helped push back the shadow of darkness.

The Industrial Revolution changed all that.  Harnessing the energy contained in fossil fuels vastly multiplied the work that could be done.  Economic activity and lifestyles grew accordingly.  These effects have been felt primarily in the industrialized, or “developed”, countries, and radically changed our expectations and habits over the past 150 or so years.  The rest of the world, commonly called “developing countries”, largely remained unchanged agrarian societies, and did not benefit from the new-found energy.

Global Warming.  By the time global warming drew worldwide attention in the last decades of the 20^th century, developing countries were beginning intensive energy-dependent expansions of their economies, seeking to move from agrarian to industrialized societies.  They rely primarily on fossil fuels to drive that growth.  These countries coalesced around a policy that no matter what harms global warming brought about, they were not to blame, and furthermore, that they had the right to surge forward using those energy sources in order to attain economic growth for their own citizens. 

India and China are prime examples of this growth surge.  Here we focus on India.  In contrast to China since the Communist Revolution, India has faced not only an economic challenge to development, it also has an expanding population.  India’s development must not only improve standards of living for its people, it must do so for more people as time passes.  (China’s one-child policy has held its population growth lower over this time.)

An impression of the economic growth of India and China in recent years can be seen in the following comparison of selected data. 
 

Entry	India	China
Population, million	1,198	1,346
Average population growth, 2010-2015 projected	1.43%	0.51%
Gross Domestic Product, billion US$	1,377	4,986
Avg. annual growth in GDP, 2004-9	8.3%	11.4%
Per capita GDP in purchasing power parity, US$	7.2	14.9
Per capita energy consumption, kg of oil equivalent	545	1,598

Source: The Economist’s Pocket World in Figures, 2012 Ed.

 

The disparity in GDP growth rates between the two countries is also shown in the graphic below.

Source: http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/Per_Capita_Gross_Domestic_Product_for_China_and_India,_1980-2008.JPG
 

As may be supposed from the introductory paragraphs above, the growth in India’s GDP and energy use track each other quite closely.  This is seen in the graphic below.

Growth in India’s economy from 2003 to 2011.  BROWN, total energy consumption (right side axis; 1 quadrillion = 1 billion million; Btu is British thermal unit); AQUA, gross domestic product (left side axis).

Source: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10611

 

India’s energy consumption doubled between 1990 and 2011; it is the fourth largest consumer of energy in the world.  Almost half of its energy is obtained by its expanding numbers of coal-fired generating plants .   Unfortunately, coal produces almost twice as much CO₂ per unit of energy yielded as natural gas.  The actual annual carbon dioxide (CO₂) emission rates produced by India are compared with data for China and the U. S. in the following graphic.

Annual rates of CO₂ emission attributed to the burning of fossil fuels from 1980-2011, for China, India and the U. S.  The numbers on the left of each panel show the lowest and highest values on the vertical axis, enlarged for legibility.  Note that the vertical axes are not comparable across the panels.

Source: Adapted from the U. S. Energy Information Administration; http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=CH#cde; http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=IN&trk=m#cde; http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=US&trk=m#cde.

 

Global climate treaties have distinguished between developed and developing countries since the time that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) entered into force in 1994.  The Kyoto Protocol (Kyoto), negotiated in 1997, adopted the same wording as appears in the Convention, namely, that nations of the world address climate change “on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.   This phrasing reflects the concerns of developing countries that “the developed countr[ies] should take the lead in combating climate change” because they contributed the most to atmospheric CO₂ from their industrialization, and that the “specific needs and special circumstances of developing countr[ies]…should be given full consideration”.  As a result, the final terms of Kyoto applied only to developed (i.e., already industrialized) countries such as the U. S. (the U. S. did not ratify Kyoto, however), nations of Western Europe, Japan and Australia; developing countries were excused from coverage.

India still harbors this distinction in global warming objectives even though the global greenhouse gas environment has changed radically.  The energy use and economies of many developing countries, including India, have grown dramatically in the 20 years since the UNFCCC was established.  India’s energy policy strongly emphasizes its need to promote economic growth at a rapid pace. 

In 2013 coal provided 54.5% of India’s energy .  About 35% of India’s population, mostly in rural areas, lacks access to electricity.  Evidently India intends to produce the energy it needs primarily from fossil fuels, thus adding to the world’s burden of atmospheric CO₂.  It currently derives very small percentages of its energy from wind, solar and hydroelectric resources.

At the United Nations Climate Summit in New York in September 2014 the Indian representative forcefully expressed his nation’s policy, appearing to rely strongly on the “specific needs and special circumstances of developing countr[ies]”.  India rejected the notion of constraining its growth and reducing its emission rate, according to Prakash Javadekar, its minister of environment, forests and climate change.  India’s first responsibility, he stated, is to reduce poverty and expand the country’s economy, rather than reduce GHG emissions.  In his view, a principal culprit of emissions is the U. S.

The U. S. and China agreed to a bilateral commitment on reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a meeting in Beijing in November, 2014.  China’s emission rates, which continue growing because it is adding new fossil fuel-driven electric generating plants to power its expanding economy, are to reach a maximum annual rate by 2030 and possibly sooner, according to its commitment.  As part of this initiative China expects to increase the share of energy derived from renewable sources (solar power, wind, nuclear and hydroelectric) to 20% by the target date of 2030.

According to India Climate Dialogue a negotiator for India, remaining anonymous, stated in response to the U. S.-China pronouncement “We cannot make the same commitment, or even a similar one. India and China are not in the same stage of economic development. If developed countries are willing to listen to us in the matter of providing finance and … technology transfer to help us transition to a greener economy, we may be able to peak sometime in the 2030s, perhaps by 2040”, i.e. about ten years later than China.  Additionally, Chandra Bhushan, deputy director general of the New Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment, concluded that the terms of the bilateral pronouncement were sufficiently lax that India “need not do anything till 2040 and beyond.”

It is clear from these official pronouncements that India does not feel compelled to limit the growth of its greenhouse gas emissions in the near future.

 

Analysis

 

India is the nation with the fourth highest use of energy in the world.  As the table above shows, even though its population is almost as large as that of China its per capita energy use and GDP are far lower than its neighbor, indicating that a large fraction of India’s people do not benefit significantly from industrialization.  The country is seeking to correct this imbalance by aggressively providing more energy, primarily derived from fossil fuels, and developing its economy.  Judging from the attitudes expressed by some of its government officials, India is justifying in its own “collective mind”, i.e., in policy-making circles, continuation of “business-as-usual”, the expansion of fossil fuel-driven energy.

Such policies ignore the role that each nation of our planet plays today in protecting our atmospheric “commons”.  By acting in this way India rejects responsibility for contributing to future worsening of global warming and its consequences, even though it may suffer from those consequences. 

A UNFCCC-sponsored meeting of climate representatives from all U. N. member states is currently convened (first two weeks of December 2014) in Lima, Peru. They are to lay the groundwork for a global climate treaty to be signed in December 2015.  It is generally agreed among climate scientists that major reductions in the annual rate of emission of greenhouse gases by 2050 have to be a critical feature of such an agreement.  (Many developed countries have already embarked on programs to meet that goal.)  Attitudes of countries such as India that repudiate the need for aggressive reductions in rates of emission constitute a serious threat to a successful outcome to those negotiations.  It must be hoped that such intransigence can be overcome.

© 2014 Henry Auer

The U. S. Needs a Unified Global Warming Agency, As Other Nations Have

Summary. The previous post detailed the distributed administrative structures dealing with global warming in the U. S. government.  It identified several problems and difficulties arising from this situation.

Here, ministries and departments dealing with global warming in the European Union and selected  countries around the world are examined.  Among the countries examined, those in the developed world have a single ministry, or at most two, dedicated to the global warming issue and related concerns.  These structures effectively focus administrative effort on this topic in these countries.

It is concluded that the U. S. should revise its scattered administrative structure for dealing with global warming by establishing a cohesive cabinet-level department or agency.  The new entity would beneficially address global warming effectively: characterizing its worsening effects, and developing policies for mitigation and adaptation to its impacts.

Introduction.  The previous post presented details showing that disparate activities related to the issue of global warming are strewn among fourteen offices housed in thirteen federal departments and agencies of the U. S. government.  The post showed that this arrangement presents many problems and concerns.  In order to overcome these difficulties, it was proposed to unify all or most of these activities in a single cabinet-level department or agency.

Here, this post presents administrative information on energy and environment ministries and departments drawn from a selection of a regional transnational authority (the European Union (EU)), and sovereign nations from the EU and elsewhere around the world.

Global Warming Ministries in The European Union and Selected Nations Around the Globe

Ministries and similar agencies from the EU and nine nations were chosen to be described here.  Developed and developing countries from Europe, Asia and South America are considered.  (The choices that were made followed this writer’s inclinations and so are not random.  Every nation chosen is presented below; none was eliminated from presentation because of information developed during searching.)  Their ministries are summarized here.  More comprehensive descriptions appear in the Details section at the end of this post.

Developed Countries

The European Union

The EU is a political compact among, currently, 28 member nations.  Its executive organization is the European Commission, which interacts with the European Parliament to enact legislation and policies.

The European Environment Agency (EEA), an agency of the EU, provides information on the environment to other bodies of the EU so that relevant, unbiased background is available for policymakers and the public.

The European Commission has several subordinate Directorates-General, among which are those for Climate Action, Energy, and the Environment.  For example, the Directorate-General for the Environment developed the EU’s greenhouse gas mitigation policy (see Details).

Four EU nations were chosen for discussion here.

 

Germany has a cabinet-level Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety.  Among its responsibilities is development of national environmental policy.

 

Germany also has a a Ministry of Economics and Energy whose responsibilities include promoting the security of the country’s energy supply and the environmental compatibility of its energy.

The United Kingdom (UK) has a cabinet-level Department of Energy and Climate Change concerned with developing its energy supply, promoting energy efficiency, and overseeing the UK’s diplomacy related to international climate policy.

The UK also has a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whose areas of practice include climate change and sustainability of resources.

Sweden has a Ministry of the Environment whose responsibilities include climate policy and environmental legislation; as well as a Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications whose tasks include providing energy security for the nation.

Norway has a Ministry of the Environment that includes Departments for Climate Change, and Nature Management, among others.  It also has a Ministry of Petroleum and Energy responsible for energy production.

 

Japan has a cabinet-level Ministry of the Environment.  Its motto is to work “towards a lifestyle that could be passed on to generations 100 years from now.”  Japan recognizes that global warming is a long-term problem.  It believes the experience gained in its recent economic development can be applied internationally to mitigate greenhouse gas  emissions.

Japan’s Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources includes responsibility for developing energy and mineral resources in an environmentally sound way.

Australia’s Ministry of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency promotes policies for the mitigation of and adaptation to global warming from greenhouse gases, as well as developing the country’s policies in international negotiations on warming.

Its Ministry of the Environment focuses on preserving Australia’s natural environment.

Developing Countries

The nations from the developing world discussed below were chosen for consideration because some of them are among the nations with the highest annual rates of emission of greenhouse gases in the world, and/or the highest rates of growth in those emissions. 

China’s administrative structure (on the English language website) did not readily show a ministry or department related to the issue of global warming, nor for energy.  The China Renewable Energy Scale-Up Program participates in international efforts in this area.  Its Ministry of Environmental Protection works under the State Council to develop policies for environmental protection, including protection from environmental pollution and for development of natural resources.

India has a National Action Plan on Climate Change, issued in 2008, having eight committees, or Missions, with specified tasks.  The missions report directly to the Prime Minister.

India has a Ministry of New and Renewable Energy.  There is also a Ministry of Power overseeing production and distribution of power.

Brazil has a Ministry of the Environment, devoted to protecting and preserving the nation’s environment, and sustainable use of its resources. 

The Ministry of Mines and Energy has the objective of promoting sustainable environmental policies while assuring the supply of energy and natural resources.

Indonesia has a Ministry of Forestry that includes the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation.

Generalizations from this worldwide selection of nations suggest that nations in the developed world have well-defined administrative structures devoted to, or involved in, assessing global warming and its effects, as well as developing and implementing meaningful policies for mitigation of and adaptation to global warming.  In general the ministries and departments examined here concentrate all or most of the administrative functions needed for addressing global warming into a single, or in some cases two, ministries or departments.

(The developing countries considered here appear not to have as well-developed administrative structures, at least apparent to the internet researcher,  as do those for countries in the developed world.  Furthermore, they appear not to have strong mechanisms for developing and implementing policies that mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions.) 

Conclusion

The previous post detailed the distributed administrative structures in the U. S. federal government involved in various aspects of global warming research, climate policy development, and implementation of rules and programs governing greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency.  The post identified several critical problems and difficulties arising from this arrangement, and concluded that a single cabinet-level department or agency should be created solely devoted to most or all aspects of the global warming issue.

The cases of the European Union and nations from the developed world presented here provide examples of single, or at most two, cabinet-level ministries dealing with global warming and its impacts on society.  Their integrated administrative structures minimize the problems identified in the U. S. federal government arising from the fact that disparate offices and bureaus, residing in several different departments and agencies, address various aspects of the global warming issue.

It is concluded that in order to develop effective global warming policy, the U. S. should reorganize all or most of these disparate activities into a new Department or Agency dealing exclusively with global warming, its causes, characteristics and impacts.  The examples from the developed world discussed here generally have such integrated administrative structures.   The new entity would evaluate the worsening trends related to warming, and formulate unified policies addressing both the mitigation of, and adaptation to, global warming at the national and international levels.

Details

Developed Countries

The European Union

The European Environment Agency (EEA) is an agency of the European Union (EU). Its task is to provide sound, independent information on the environment. It is a major information source for those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating environmental policy, and also the general public.

The European Commission is the high level body for the European Union, formulating policy proposals presented to the European Parliament for action.  The European Commission has several Directorates-General (DG), including those for Climate Action, Energy and the Environment.

The DG for Climate Action assembled the 20-20-20 goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: a 20% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels; producing 20% of the EU’s energy from renewable sources; and improving energy efficiency by 20%; by 2020.

The DG for Energy sets up an energy market for Europe, and promotes sustainable energy production and use consistent with the EU emissions goal for 2020.

The DG for the Environment oversees enforcement of EU environmental law.

Any act passed by the European Parliament is implemented by passing corresponding legislation in each member nation.  Examples of some European national-level environmental or global warming agencies are presented here.

Germany has a cabinet-level Ministry of for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety.  Its responsibilities include

Fundamental national environmental policy,

Informing and educating the public about environmental issues,

Environmental remediation and development in Eastern Germany, and

Climate protection and energy.

Germany also has a Ministry of Economics and Energy whose objective is promoting economic efficiency, security of supply and environmental compatibility of its energy.  The Ministry formulates and implements energy policy.

United Kingdom: The cabinet-level Department of Energy and Climate Change assures responsible development of energy sources for the UK, promotes energy efficiency, and develops international approaches for limiting climate change.  It oversees the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs develops strategies for

Climate change, adaptation and energy use; and

Sustainable consumption and production; among others.

Sweden: The Ministry of the Environment has responsibilities that include, among others,

Climate policy,

Environmental quality objectives,

Environmental legislation, and

Sustainable Development.

Sweden’s Ministry of Enterprise, Energy andCommunications includes responsibility for assuring an efficient energy system at competitive prices.

Norway: The Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment is specifically responsible for carrying out the environmental policies of the Government.  Among its sections are

Department for Climate Change,

Department for Marine Management and Pollution Control, and

Department for Nature Management.

Norway’s Ministry of Petroleum and Energy oversees energy production and usage.  Much of Norway’s energy is derived from hydropower.

Japan: The cabinet-level Ministry of the Environment has 10 interrelated policy guidelines with the overall objective of integrating policies that secure a sustainable environment while developing the economy and promoting the wellbeing of society.  Its policy is to work “towards a lifestyle that could be passed on to generations 100 years from now.”  In order to reduce the nation’s burden on the environment while still ensuring a high quality of life for all, “it is necessary for each one of us to think about how we can lead a rich and eco-friendly life….”  The environmental policy recognizes that Japan must work with all peoples of the world, including applying the experience gained in the development of Japan’s economy to those nations now undergoing development.  Global warming is a long-term problem, requiring a time horizon of at least 50 years  to achieve emission reduction goals. 

Japan’s Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources has the mission of managing development of energy and mineral resources in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner.

Australia has the following ministries.

The Ministry of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency promotes policies for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation to global warming already under way, promotion of energy efficiency and development of Australia’s positions in global negotiations on warming.

The Ministry of the Environment is devoted to preservation and protection of Australia’s natural environment.

The Ministry of Industry includes a Department of Industry whose charge is to integrate policies in industry, energy, resources and skills to promote economic growth and competitiveness.

Developing Countries

China: The mission of the Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China includes

Developing laws, regulations and assessments, as endowed by the State Council, for environmental protection.  Protection from pollution extends to air, water, soil, marine areas and vehicle emissions, among others.  In addition the Ministry oversees development and utilization of natural resources affecting the environment.  The Ministry also develops environmental standards and capabilities for environmental measurements.  It also generates basic principles that come to bear on global environmental issues, participating in and coordinating negotiations on international environmental conventions. 

The China Renewable Energy Scale-Up Program appears to participate in an international program in renewable energy.  Its web page shows date stamped entries of news items up to June 2013.  It is not clear how it fits into the national administrative structure. 

There appears to be no ministry dealing with energy.
 

India: India issued a National Action Plan on Climate Change in 2008. Important components include the National Missions for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem, Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change, Solar (Energy), Enhanced Energy Efficiency, and various missions for aspects of sustainability and reforestation.  These are found within a Council on Climate Change reporting directly to the Prime Minister.

India’s Ministry of Power oversees generation and distribution of power, including from thermal and hydro generation sources.

India also has a Ministry of New and Renewable Energy whose aim is to develop and deploy new and renewable energy sources to supplement the country’s energy needs.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests has the goals of preserving the nation’s natural resources and reducing pollution.

An Energy Planning Commission in India seeks to unify development of the nation’s energy policy.  India recognizes “the need for an integrated energy policy because the responsibility for different energy sources is distributed over a number of different Ministries, e.g. Petroleum, Coal, Power, Water Resources (in the case of hydroelectricity), Atomic Energy and New & Renewable Energy.”

Brazil: The Ministry of the Environment has the goal of protecting and restoring the country’s environment, and of the sustainable use of its natural resources.  The ministry is responsible for developing policy for the environment and water resources, for preservation, conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems, for improving environmental quality and for sustainable use of natural resources.

Brazil’s Ministry of Mines and Energy has as its mission “to guarantee the supply of energy and mineral resources…and promote …sustainable environmental and economically viable policies.”

This writer did not find an administrative body directed toward global warming.

Indonesia:  The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources promotes security of energy supply and production of minerals.

The Ministry of Forestry includes the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation.        

© 2014 Henry Auer