David Goone

The press release states, “IntercontinentalExchange, a leading operator of global regulated futures exchanges, clearing houses and over-the-counter (OTC) markets, announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued it a patent for the business process that underpins ICE eConfirm, the company’s electronic trade confirmation service.

The patent (No. 8,007,743) covers the design of a computer system that matches and categorizes trades between a trader and counterparty based on the electronically submitted trade details. Additional aspects of the patent include translation of data values to those in a master database, electronic confirmation of trades governed by a master agreement, and a matching engine that compares and categorizes broker trade confirmations. These business methods constitute the foundation of ICE eConfirm, which has matched and confirmed more than 11 million trades since its launch in 2002.

“This patent recognizes ICE’s leadership in pairing technology with workflow enhancements to improve derivatives transaction processing and transparency,” said David Goone, Senior Vice President and Chief Strategic Officer. “Commodity market participants have benefited from the significant improvements in efficiencies brought about by ICE eConfirm over the last decade. We are pleased that this patent will help us protect ICE’s intellectual property and enable us to build out additional services for the industry.”

ICE eConfirm will serve as the front-end application for the ICE Trade Vault swap data repository (SDR) under the Dodd-Frank Act, and is slated to launch in early 2012. The combination of ICE Trade Vault and ICE eConfirm will streamline reporting by employing processes and systems already in use by the industry. Participants in the commodity markets will be able to use ICE eConfirm to submit non-cleared trades and end-user clearing exemptions in order to comply with new reporting requirements.

“The patented functionality makes ICE Trade Vault a compelling extension of our trade confirmation service for our customers,” said Bruce Tupper, ICE Trade Vault Vice President. “Customers will benefit from a cost-effective solution that relies on superior technology and enables seamless integration into existing workflows.”"

Read more: Press Release

ICE

According to the press release, “Through 21 September, ICE’s CDS clearing houses have cleared $12 trillion in gross notional with aggregate open interest of $1.1 trillion. ICE Clear Europe has cleared euro 3.4 trillion ($4.6 trillion) of gross notional value of CDS transactions, including euro 530 billion in single-name CDS, resulting in euro 443 billion ($580 billion) of open interest. ICE Trust has cleared $7.4 trillion of gross notional value, including more than $3 billion in buy-side clearing and $455 billion in single name clearing, resulting in open interest of $494 billion.”

Source: ICE Press Release

AFD, EIB and EDFI members will sign a Memorandum of Understanding for THE INTERACT CLIMATE CHANGE FUND (ICCF) at a meeting in Bruges on Friday. The Parties intend to establish an investment matching facility to invest in private sector climate change projects in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, Asia and Latin America before the end of 2010.

The institutions have extensive experience operating across developing countries and emerging markets and share a joint interest in financing climate change and climate efficiency projects with the aim of creating a portfolio of climate friendly private sector investments in target countries.

Partners will seek to demonstrate the financial attractiveness of climate-friendly projects to private sector investors in developing countries and emerging markets and will commit to act as catalyst lead investors to attract additional long-term investments.

The institutions will further promote use of clean technology as an integral part of economic development and provide long term financing for renewable energy projects in countries facing acute energy shortages and restricted energy access, further contributing to economic development;

Funding is expected to be provided by Agence Française de Développement, the European Investment Bank through the Cotonou Investment Facility and 12 EDFI members: BIO (Belgium), CDC (United Kingdom), COFIDES (Spain), DEG (Germany), FINNFUND (Finland), FMO (the Netherlands), IFU (Denmark), NORFUND (Norway), OeEB (Austria), PROPARCO (France), Sifem (Switzerland) and SWEDFUND (Sweden).

The initiative has the twin aim of promoting sustainable development of private sector climate change projects and strengthening meaningful co-operation between European Development Finance Institutions, AFD and the European Investment Bank.

The European Investment Bank’s Director General for Operations outside the European Union and Candidate Countries, Martin Curwen, the acting Director General of AFD, Jean Michel Debrat, and the Chairman of EDFI, Luc Rigouzzo, expressed their commitment to the ICCF initiative at the signing ceremony in Bruges. ”

Source: Press Release

ICE

According to the Press Release, “Intercontinental Exchange (NYSE: ICE), a leading operator of regulated global futures exchanges, clearing houses and over-the-counter (OTC) markets, today announced that it has agreed on terms to acquire Climate Exchange plc (Climate Exchange or CLE), a leader in the development of traded emissions markets. Climate Exchange operates the European Climate Exchange (ECX), the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) and the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange (CCFE).

Under the terms of the acquisition, Climate Exchange shareholders will receive 7.50 pounds Sterling in cash for each share in Climate Exchange held at today’s date, valuing the entire existing issued and to be issued share capital of Climate Exchange at approximately 395 million pounds ($604 million(1)). The transaction consideration will include $220 million that has been drawn from ICE’s existing credit facilities for these purposes(2) and the remainder from existing cash resources. The transaction is expected to be accretive to earnings in 2011 and slightly dilutive to earnings for the balance of the current year(3) following an anticipated closing at the end of July 2010. ICE, through its wholly-owned subsidiary IntercontinentalExchange Holdings, acquired a 4.8% stake in CLE on June 22, 2009 for 6.45 pounds a share. Additional details will be provided upon the completion of the transaction, at which time Climate Exchange will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of ICE, operating under the Climate Exchange’s respective brand names.

“The combination of Climate Exchange’s emissions markets and ICE’s futures and OTC energy markets is an important and logical strategic combination for our customers and shareholders, and clearly an exciting opportunity for ICE to grow and further diversify our revenues,” said ICE Chairman and CEO Jeffrey C. Sprecher. “ICE has been a partner with Climate Exchange and Dr. Sandor since 2003, and we have worked together toward the development and expansion of the emissions markets. The leadership that Climate Exchange has shown in establishing market standards in Europe, and increasingly the U.S. and Asia, has driven its success, and we see continued growth opportunities within these nascent markets globally.”

“The development of our Company from initial concept to its leadership role in global environmental markets is a tribute to the vision and efforts of our entire team. We believe that a combination with ICE makes strategic sense and look forward to addressing continued opportunities together,” said Climate Exchange’s Chairman Richard Sandor. “ICE has committed to further developing the Climate Exchange businesses and building on our joint track record of innovation and success to the benefit of our customers across futures and OTC markets in Europe, Asia and the U.S.”

ICE and its affiliates currently have multiple contracts in place with Climate Exchange and its affiliates to provide technology and clearing services. These contracts include a cooperation and licensing agreement whereby ICE provides an electronic trading platform and clearing to ECX for European emissions trading, a licensing technology agreement whereby ICE provides an electronic trading platform to CCX for U.S. emissions trading and a clearing services agreement whereby ICE provides clearing for CCX’s U.S. emissions markets. Pursuant to these contracts, ICE charges fees to Climate Exchange for the services provided and shares in the revenue with respect to the trading and clearing of emissions contracts.

The transaction is subject to relevant regulatory approvals. Morgan Stanley advised ICE on the transaction and Shearman & Sterling LLP served as ICE’s legal advisor.

(1) Based on an USD/GBP exchange rate of 1.528

(2) A detailed description of these credit facilities can be found in Form 8-K as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2010.

(3) Nothing in this announcement is intended to be a profit forecast and the statements in this announcement should not be interpreted to mean that the earnings per share of IntercontinentalExchange common stock for the current or future financial periods will necessarily be greater or lower than those for the relevant preceding financial period.”

Source: Intercontinental Exchange Press Release

Lisa Jackson

According to Reuters, “At least 15 U.S. states have sued the Environmental Protection Agency seeking to stop it from issuing rules controlling greenhouse gas emissions until it reexamines whether the pollution harms human health.

Florida, Indiana, South Carolina and at least nine other states filed the petitions in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, states said.

They joined petitions filed last month by Virginia, Texas and Alabama.

The Obama administration has long said it would attack greenhouse gas emissions with EPA regulation if Congress failed to pass a climate bill.

The EPA is set to issue regulations later this month that would require autos and light trucks to increase energy efficiency. That would trigger rules on large emitters like power plants requiring them to get permits showing they are using the best technology available to reduce emissions.

The state petitions call for the EPA to reopen hearings on the so-called “endangerment finding” the agency issued last year declaring the emissions dangerous to people.

“If EPA doesn’t reopen the hearings we will move forward to try to stop them from regulating greenhouse gases,” said Brian Gottstein, an assistant to Virginia’s Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli.

The states have complained that the EPA relied too heavily from reports by the U.N.’s climate science panel which included information that exaggerated the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

The EPA said it was confident it would withstand legal challenges on the issue. “The question of the science is settled,” spokeswoman Adora Andy said. The science “came from an array of highly respected, peer-reviewed sources from both within the United States and across the globe, and took into consideration hundreds of thousands of comments from members of the public, which were addressed in the finding,” she said.”

Source: Reuters

Corn Field

Backgrounder on the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Founded in 1969, it was born out of a teach-in organized by a group of scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to protest the militarization of scientific research and promote science in the public interest. This non-profit has a history of going against US Conservative Energy policy and research.

Their argument is posted below:

“Attacks on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Obscure Real Science

Over the last few months, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been attacked for minor errors in its sprawling 2007 report on climate change. To set the record straight and provide appropriate scientific context, the Union of Concerned Scientists has assembled a series of explanatory backgrounders on specific allegations about the report.

Overall, the IPCC’s conclusions remain indisputable: Climate change is happening now and human activity is causing it. Nations around the world will have to adapt to at least some climate change, including sea level rise, changes in precipitation, disruptions to agriculture, and species extinctions. But if we dramatically reduce our emissions, we can prevent the worst effects of climate change.

* What is the IPCC?
* Himalayan glaciers won’t be gone by 2035, but glaciers around the world are retreating
* The IPCC got the science right about drought and fire threats to Amazon, but got its citations wrong
* More extreme weather from climate change will cause expensive damage
* Chinese temperature records are reliable and consistent with global warming

What is the IPCC?

The IPCC is the world’s leading body for assessing climate science. It was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) in recognition of the problem of global warming. Through the IPCC, climate experts from around the world synthesize the most recent climate science findings every five to seven years and present their report to the world’s political leaders. Thus far, the IPCC has issued comprehensive assessments in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007.

The IPCC’s 2007 report is the most comprehensive synthesis of climate change science to date. Experts from more than 130 countries working over six years contributed to the assessment. More than 450 lead authors received input from more than 800 contributing authors, and an additional 2,500 experts reviewed the draft documents.

The 2007 report is comprised of three sections, or working groups, that focus on the scientific basis of global warming (Working Group I), its consequences (Working Group II), and options for mitigation (Working Group III). The IPCC released summaries of the three working group documents over the course of 2007, culminating in the publication of the final “synthesis report” at the end of the year.

The inclusive and transparent process by which IPCC assessments are developed, reviewed and accepted by experts and governments helps ensure scientific credibility and value for informing officials when they formulate climate policies. As with any human endeavor, errors are possible. It is a testament to the quality of the IPCC that errors have been few, and when identified, they have been corrected. A concerted effort to improve the quality of the IPCC process is essential.

Himalayan glaciers won’t be gone by 2035, but glaciers around the world are retreating

The second of three 2007 IPCC reports included a statement that the likelihood that Himalayan glaciers will disappear “by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high.” It is not clear how this unsupported assertion made it into the report, although it was openly challenged by some researchers during the review and editing process. On January 20, the IPCC released a statement (pdf) on this issue. It says, in part, “The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance.”

The claim was part of the full review of climate science and impacts provided in the dense, 3,000-page report, but was not mentioned in its highly visible summaries for policymakers. Presumably the working group did not consider the 2035 Himalayan glaciers claim to be reliable enough for its policymaker summary. The statement in the summary was much less specific. “If current warming rates are maintained,” it stated, “Himalayan glaciers could decay at very rapid rates.”

Given the sprawling nature of the IPCC, it is not surprising to find relatively minor errors. Such mistakes do not undermine the overall conclusions of the organization’s reports, which are subject to an exhaustive review process.

What should not get lost is the fact that glaciers around the world are melting rapidly.

A 2005 global survey of 442 glaciers from the World Glacier Monitoring Service found that only 26 were advancing, 18 were stationary, and 398 were retreating. Overall, about 90 percent of the world’s glaciers that scientists have measured are shrinking as the planet warms.

Because scientific understanding of how fast snow and ice is responding to global warming is still developing, the IPCC largely left the effect of melting glaciers and ice sheets out of its sea-level rise projections in 2007 and primarily considered the effects that thermal expansion has on the ocean.

New analyses indicate that the shrinking land-based ice could lead to a sea-level rise of 2.6 feet (0.8 meter) by the end of the century; and, although 6.6 feet (2.0 meters) is less likely, it is still physically possible.

Melting glaciers and the resulting sea-level rise are a threat to coastal communities around the world. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2009 review of climate impacts in the United States, “Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected.”

Melting glaciers also will threaten drinking water supplies. An August 2008 Geophysical Research Letters study that examined the impact of the melting Himalayan Naimona’nyi glacier concluded, “If Naimona’nyi is characteristic of other glaciers in the region, alpine glacier meltwater surpluses are likely to shrink much faster than currently predicted with substantial consequences for approximately half a billion people.”

The IPCC got the science right about drought and fire threats to Amazon, but got its citations wrong

A sentence in Chapter 13 of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability states: “Up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation.”

In other words, climate change makes drought in the Amazon basin more likely. In drought years, trees are more likely to die and forests become more susceptible to fires. In wet years, fires often stop at the forests’ edge because the forest soil is so moist.

The passage cites a report from the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), an organization that includes more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations, and nearly 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. (News stories have inaccurately described the report as a sole product of WWF.)

It would have been preferable for the IPCC to have cited the original scientific peer-reviewed literature rather than the WWF-IUCN report. Further, the WWF-IUCN report was scientifically correct, but it did not cite the correct papers by Dan Nepstad, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center on Cape Cod, and his colleagues.

John Cook, the editor of SkepticalScience.com, summarized the citation error in the WWF-IUCU report:

“The WWF correctly states that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998 — this figure comes from Nepstad et al. 1999. However, the 40 percent figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite. A 1994 paper estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). In 2004, new rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die (Nepstad et al. 2004). The results from these papers are consistent with the original statement: ‘Up to 40 percent of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.’”

It is also worth nothing that Nepstad and other researchers further confirmed the link between drought and fire in papers published after the IPCC’s deadline for research that could be included in this section of its 2007 report.

Cook continues:

“Subsequent research has provided additional confirmation of the Amazonian forest’s vulnerability to drought. Field measurements of the soil moisture critical threshold found that tree mortality rates increase dramatically during drought (Nepstad et al. 2007). Another study measured the effect of the intense 2005 drought on Amazonian biomass (Phillips et al. 2009). The drought caused massive tree mortality leading to a fall in biomass. This turned the region from a large carbon sink to a carbon producer. The paper concluded that ‘such events appear capable of strongly altering the regional carbon balance and thereby accelerating climate change.’”

While the IPCC should have cited the original peer-reviewed literature, not a summary of that literature by WWF and IUCN, the basic science was sound. And regardless of how the IPCC cited the references, tropical forests are increasingly vulnerable to drought and fire because of climate change as well as from forest degradation from destructive logging practices.

More extreme weather from climate change will cause expensive damage

There is a clear scientific consensus — based on the conclusions of many peer-reviewed papers — that climate change is causing an increase in storms with heavy precipitation. This is due in part because warmer air retains more moisture, setting the stage for heavier rain and snow storms in areas that typically experience rain or snow. Between 1958 and 2007, New England saw a 67 percent increase in heavy precipitation events and the Midwest experienced a 31 percent increase, according to the 2009 federal report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” The report documented a 20 percent average increase for the entire country.

The 2007 IPCC report also was clear about how climate change would affect hurricanes. It concluded that hurricane intensity worldwide likely would increase, and that there could be fewer weak hurricanes. The report included numerous references to peer-reviewed studies that draw this conclusion, which was confirmed by studies conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other institutions.

The science linking climate change to increased severity of extreme weather is well-substantiated in peer-reviewed literature. Even so, some contrarians have recently cited another, older controversy to try to give the false impression that these findings are in question. That controversy centers on how the 2007 report characterized the economic cost of an increase in severe weather. Contrarians specifically point to a complaint by Roger Pielke Jr., a University of Colorado environmental studies professor, that the 2007 report misrepresented the reasons why economic losses from natural disasters have significantly increased over the years. Pielke says that the primary drivers for increased costs are economic factors, such as changes in wealth and population along the coasts.

The IPCC report did not dispute that fact, and it prominently cited Pielke’s research. It also cited one study that suggested that factors other than economic ones may be driving costs, but included a number of caveats in that citation. This is in keeping with the IPCC’s task of presenting a balanced view of the literature. Specifically, the report concluded in its “Summary for Policy Makers” section: “Costs and benefits of climate change for industry, settlement [cities and towns] and society will vary widely by location and scale. In the aggregate, however, net effects will tend to be more negative the larger the change in climate.” And it found: “Where extreme weather events become more intense and/or more frequent, the economic and social costs of those events will increase, and these increases will be substantial in the areas most directly affected.”

Pielke specifically objected to the IPCC including unpublished material on economic costs of natural disasters in its 2007 report. This practice, however, is not unusual for the IPCC. IPCC procedures state that “…it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC reports, in particular, information about the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organizational publications, non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops, etc).” The IPCC provides guidelines for the inclusion of such research, including clear citation. In any case, more published research is needed on the economic costs of climate change.

Chinese temperature records are reliable and consistent with global warming

Climate contrarians are falsely claiming Eastern Chinese temperature data first published in a 1990 Nature paper is compromised by the “urban heat island” effect. The term refers to the fact that buildings and asphalt are darker than surrounding countryside, often making cities and population centers hotter. Scientists have studied this effect since the mid-1800s and it is extensively referenced in the scientific literature. Overall, climate science indicates that the urban heat island effects has no bearing on global temperature trends and is insignificant compared to other adjustments routinely made to make temperature records more accurate,

When scientists measure global warming, they examine how much temperatures have changed over time. For instance, an urban station may have warmer thermometer readings compared with a rural station in the region, but global warming will cause temperatures to rise at both stations. To determine trends, scientists compare the difference between the temperatures at stations today and their average temperatures in the past.

Scientists worldwide, including those at leading American institutions, routinely correct station data for changes such as shifts in station location, different elevation, different time of daily observation, different latitudes, and instrument changes over time. For example, after such adjustments for stations across the United States, there was no detectable difference between urban and rural stations comparisons in each region.

Climate contrarians are using the Eastern Chinese temperature data to try to link manufactured controversies over citations in the IPCC’s 2007 report and the content of stolen emails from the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit that were published online late last November. UEA has issued a statement rebutting these claims and addressing some freedom of information concerns raised by a recent story in the Guardian, a British newspaper. According to UCS, UEA could do more to be transparent, particularly by making relevant documents related to these and other charges easily accessible online.

The 2007 IPCC report does cite papers on the Eastern Chinese data — along with thousands of other papers. And some of the stolen emails included passages that mentioned the Chinese data. But just like the previous manufactured controversies, these accusations shed little light on the science in question.

In fact, the Eastern China temperature data referenced in the Guardian article and other news stories are reliable and are only a minuscule part of the global temperature record data that indicate that the Earth’s average temperatures are rising. It should be noted the “urban heat island” effect does not in any way affect the vast number of temperature records measured outside of cities or in the ocean.

Eastern China is warming in a way consistent with the rise in global average temperatures. The 1990 Nature paper in question was backed up by several other studies, as the University of East Anglia noted.

When University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit Director Phil Jones and other researchers conducted their 1990 research, they found little difference in temperature between 42 urban stations and 42 suburban temperature stations in Eastern China. A 2008 study by Jones and other researchers, which examined 728 temperatures stations in Eastern China, confirmed that there was an insignificant difference between temperatures in urban and suburban areas. However, by comparing the difference between all the Eastern China land stations to the nearby ocean temperatures, the 2008 paper did find significant warming from increased urbanization on the land — 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade between 1951 and 2004. Overall, the study found Eastern China warmed 0.8 degrees Celsius over the same time period largely due to global warming.Chinese temperature records are reliable and consistent with global warming”

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists

ADB President Haruhiko Kuroda also told Reuters in an interview that if governments were to fail to reach a climate deal in Copenhagen, it could lead to a collapse of the carbon market which would hit efforts to deal with climate change.

Rich and poor nations differ over how much the developed world should pay to help developing economies combat or cope with climate change.

“Whatever is agreed in this process, financing is really key — financing for mitigation as well as adaptation efforts to be done particularly by developing countries,” Kuroda said during a one-day break in 190-nation negotiations in the Danish capital.

“If meaningful financing arrangements are agreed, that would facilitate the core agreement on greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, threshold or benchmark by the international community, which would be absolutely necessary to stabilize climate change at the latest by 2015,” he said.

Kuroda said many different figures had been mentioned of the need for financing for a climate deal ranging anywhere from $10 billion to $100 billion.

“At this stage the figures committed by the developed world are still insufficient and must be substantially increased over the years to come,” Kuroda said, but did not give a figure for how high it needed to rise.

The bank’s Japanese president said that the European Union’s pledge of 7.3 billion euros over three years was “a significant first” toward a global financing deal.

ADAPTATION MONEY

Financing is needed, he said, especially for developing countries’ adaptation measures which are not so “automatically financed” as mitigation efforts which benefit from funds generated by the cap-and-trade system.

Mitigation means curbing greenhouse gas emissions while adaptation comprises efforts to cope with climate change by widely ranging means from flood defenses to development of drought-resistant crops and disease control.

“Some Asian countries are going to be disproportionately affected by climate change,” he said, mentioning Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and Pacific islands as vulnerable to sea rises, typhoons, cyclones and other weather phenomena.

“Many of them are low-income countries, and the adaptation costs are huge,” he said. “So the international community must provide adequate support for those severely affected and low-income countries.”

Kuroda said it was the role of the multilateral development banks, including his Manila-headquartered ADB, to assist governments in the process, though the banks are not directly involved in the Copenhagen negotiations. Kuroda said failure by governments to reach a new accord on climate measures extending beyond the Kyoto Protocol period ending in 2012 could have grave repercussions.

“If there is no agreement post-Kyoto, then the carbon market would collapse,” he said. “That would cause great damage to the global effort to reduce effort to reduce GHG emissions.”"

Source: Reuters Reuters

According to the Press Release, “WASHINGTON – After a thorough examination of the scientific evidence and careful consideration of public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare of the American people. EPA also finds that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat.

GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of Americans.

“These long-overdue findings cement 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States Government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution and seizing the opportunity of clean-energy reform,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Business leaders, security experts, government officials, concerned citizens and the United States Supreme Court have called for enduring, pragmatic solutions to reduce the greenhouse gas pollution that is causing climate change. This continues our work towards clean energy reform that will cut GHGs and reduce the dependence on foreign oil that threatens our national security and our economy.”

EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that GHGs fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emission reduction requirements but rather allow EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed earlier this year for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation.

On-road vehicles contribute more than 23 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions. EPA’s proposed GHG standards for light-duty vehicles, a subset of on-road vehicles, would reduce GHG emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of model year 2012-2016 vehicles.

EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world.

Scientific consensus shows that as a result of human activities, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere are at record high levels and data shows that the Earth has been warming over the past 100 years, with the steepest increase in warming in recent decades. The evidence of human-induced climate change goes beyond observed increases in average surface temperatures; it includes melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, acidification of the oceans due to excess carbon dioxide, changing precipitation patterns, and changing patterns of ecosystems and wildlife.

President Obama and Administrator Jackson have publicly stated that they support a legislative solution to the problem of climate change and Congress’ efforts to pass comprehensive climate legislation. However, climate change is threatening public health and welfare, and it is critical that EPA fulfill its obligation to respond to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants.

EPA issued the proposed findings in April 2009 and held a 60-day public comment period. The agency received more than 380,000 comments, which were carefully reviewed and considered during the development of the final findings.”

Source: Press Release – EPA

President Barack Obama

According to Reuters, “Obama was originally scheduled to attend the December 7-18 summit in Denmark on Wednesday before traveling to nearby Oslo to collect his Nobel Peace Prize.

Some European officials and environmentalists had expressed surprise at the initial decision, pointing out most of the hard bargaining on cutting greenhouse gas emissions would likely take place at the climax of the summit, when dozens of other world leaders are also due to attend.

“After months of diplomatic activity, there is progress being made toward a meaningful Copenhagen accord in which all countries pledge to take action against the global threat of climate change,” the White House said in a statement.

Danish officials say more than 100 world leaders have confirmed they will attend the conference, which Denmark hopes will help lay the foundation for a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on curbing global warming gases.

“Based on his conversations with other leaders and the progress that has already been made to give momentum to negotiations, the president believes that continued U.S. leadership can be most productive through his participation at the end of the Copenhagen conference on December 18th rather than on December 9th,” the White House said.

The Obama administration has been encouraged by recent announcements by China and India, two other major carbon emitters, to set targets to rein in emissions and the growing consensus on raising cash to help poor nations cope with global warming, seen as a stumbling block to a new U.N. deal.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen swiftly welcomed Obama’s decision, saying his attendance was “an expression of the growing political momentum toward sealing an ambitious climate deal in Copenhagen.”

In London, a spokesman for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Obama’s presence would give “huge impetus” to the negotiations.

The United States will pledge in Copenhagen to cut its greenhouse gas emissions roughly 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

It was the last major industrialized country to offer a target for cutting greenhouse gases in a U.N.-led drive to slow rising world temperatures that could bring more heatwaves, expanding deserts, floods and rising sea levels.

Experts expect the Copenhagen gathering to reach a political agreement that includes targets for cuts in greenhouse gases by rich nations by 2020. Agreement on a successor to Kyoto will be put off until 2010.

The White House said Obama had discussed the status of negotiations with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain’s Brown.

There appeared to be a growing consensus that a “core element” of the Copenhagen accord should be to seek pledges totaling $10 billion a year by 2012 to help developing countries cope with climate change, the White House said.

“The United States will pay its fair share of that amount and other countries will make substantial commitments as well,” it said.

Environmentalists welcomed Obama’s move and some called for him to shift his administration’s target for cutting emissions at the same time.

“After a global outcry, President Obama has listened to the people and other world leaders; he has come to his senses and accepted the importance of this potentially historic meeting,” Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace International’s political climate coordinator, said in a statement.”

Source: Reuters