[News] from [guardian.co.uk]
[Environment > Climate change]
Obama sees the positives as US gives formal notice on greenhouse gases
State department climate change envoy Todd Stern writes to UN to formally promise to reduce emissions by 17% by 2020
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 January 2010 02.51 GMT Article history
America embraced the accord reached at the Copenhagen climate summit yesterday by formally giving notice to the United Nations that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The announcement was the second piece of encouraging news from the US in 24 hourson the prospect of reaching a global deal on climate change.
In his state of the union address on Wednesday, Barack Obama promised to keep pushing on his energy and climate change agenda. The intervention could boost the slim prospects of getting Congress to act on climate change - which is widely seen as a precondition for a global deal.
In his letter to the UN, the state department climate change envoy, Todd Stern, said that America could cut carbon emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020.
However, he said, the commitment was contingent on Congress passing climate change legislation.
The letter reaffirms the promise Obama made to the summit last month to cutUS emissions and work for a global climate deal. It says the 2020 commitment was a first step towards cutting America's global warming pollution by 42% in 2030, and by more than 80% by the middle of the century.
"The US submission reflects President Obama's continued commitment to meeting the climate change and clean energy challenge through robust domestic and international action that will strengthen our economy, enhance our national security and protect our environment," Stern wrote.
He said America was acting on the assumption that other countries which signed the accord would take similar action.
"The United States is committed to working with our partners around the world to make the accord operational and to continue the effort to build a strong, effective, science-based, global regime to combat the profound threat of climate change," Stern wrote.
Under the slight, 12-paragraph, accord reached at Copenhagen, industrialised countries and the rapidly emerging economies like India and China were expected to offer formal notification of their plans to act on emissions by January 31.
However, the UN has since indicated that deadline is somewhat elastic, and there are fears that the momentum in the run-up to Copenhagen has fizzled away.
Obama offered some sense of movement in his speech, refusing to back down on climate agenda despite running into opposition from Republicans, as well as Democrats from oil and coal states, and the industrial heartland.
He told Congress he would carry on. "I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy, and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change," he said. "But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future. "
Obama's new vision for an energy and climate bill, spelled out on Wednesday, do not necessarily align with those of environmental groups or the liberal wing of his own Democratic party. He called for opening up new areas for offshore drilling and building more nuclear power plants.
But his willingness to recommit his administration to the energy agenda could boost the slim prospects of getting a climate change bill out of the Senate this year.
Democrat John Kerry and Republican Lindsey Graham have been lobbying hard among Republicans and conservative Democrats - as well as business leaders - to try and craft a compromise bill.
Obama, in his support for nuclear power and offshore drilling, hit on some of the components Kerry and Graham have been discussing. But several Senators told reporters they still thought it unlikely the Senate would take up energy and climate before the end of 2010.
[Environment > Hacked climate science emails]
University in hacked climate change emails row broke FOI rules
> Too late to take action, says deputy commissioner
> University of East Anglia 'will act as appropriate'
James Randerson
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 January 2010 22.26 GMT Article history
The University of East Anglia flouted Freedom of Information regulations in its handling of requests for data from climate sceptics, according to the government body that administers the act.
In a statement, the deputy information commissioner Graham Smith said emails between scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that were hacked and placed on the internet in November revealed that FOI requests were "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation".
Some of the hacked emails reveal scientists encouraging their colleagues to delete emails, apparently to prevent them from being revealed to people making FOI requests. Such a breach of the act could carry an unlimited fine, but Smith said no action could be taken against the university because the specific request they had looked at happened in May 2008, well outside the six-month limit for such prosecutions under the act.
The hacked emails have created an international argument that has fuelled climate scepticism and led to questions about the operation of the UN's climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The circumstances surrounding the hacking and the actions of the scientists are the subject of an independent inquiry commissioned by the university and headed by Sir Muir Russell, formerly a civil servant and principal and vice chancellor of Glasgow University.
The pronouncement by the Information Commissioner's Office is likely to carry significant weight with the inquiry. The illegal hack is separately also being investigated by Norfolk police.
"I think that is an extremely serious charge," said Phil Willis, the Liberal Democrat MP who chairs the parliamentary science and technology select committee, which is conducting its own inquiry. He said that Smith's statement would be investigated by both the select committee and Russell's inquiry. "I don't think you can have the inquiry unless you have all the issues relating to it out in the open."
Willis said it would be wrong if there could be no legal sanction had the FOI act been breached. "Given the seriousness of this issue, the fact that it has caused global consternation, and has given ammunition to the climate sceptics – to have such a serious breach and for there to be no recourse in law requires urgent attention by the government."
He urged the university to be open with the data that was being requested. "If there has been a breach in this situation then the most honourable thing for the university to do would be to honour the request in its totality with all speed," said Willis.
Smith's statement refers to an FOI request from a retired engineer and climate sceptic in Northampton called David Holland. The CRU had been bombarded with similar requests for data, and the hacked emails between scientists suggest they were extremely frustrated with having to deal with them.
In response to the request, Dr Caspar Ammann, a scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, wrote back to three scientists, including the CRU's director, Dr Phil Jones: "Oh MAN! Will this crap ever end??"
In his statement, Smith said that Holland's request was not dealt with correctly by the university. "The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information."
But he added that it was now too late to take action because the legislation requires that sanctions are imposed within six months of the offence. "The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. It is important to note that the ICO enforces the law as it stands – we do not make it."
He said he would be advising UEA on its legal obligations. "We will also be studying the investigation reports [by Sir Muir Russell and Norfolk police], and we will then consider what regulatory action, if any, should then be taken under the Data Protection Act."
Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham research institute on climate Change and the environment at the London School of Economics, said: "I think that anybody reading the emails that have been posted online will have concluded that some of those showed an intention to avoid complying with the FOI. I always thought that those emails were the most damning.
"I think this is quite damaging. It remains to be seen why these requests were not handled properly. I think regardless of any action by the information commissioner, the university should clearly take appropriate action in response to this."
A spokesperson for the University of East Anglia said that it was not aware of Smith's statement. "The way Freedom of Information requests have been handled is one of the main areas being explored by Sir Muir Russell's independent review. We have already made clear that the findings of the review will be made public and that we will act as appropriate on its recommendations," she said.
[Environment > Climate change]
Obama sees the positives as US gives formal notice on greenhouse gases
State department climate change envoy Todd Stern writes to UN to formally promise to reduce emissions by 17% by 2020
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 January 2010 02.51 GMT Article history
America embraced the accord reached at the Copenhagen climate summit yesterday by formally giving notice to the United Nations that it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The announcement was the second piece of encouraging news from the US in 24 hourson the prospect of reaching a global deal on climate change.
In his state of the union address on Wednesday, Barack Obama promised to keep pushing on his energy and climate change agenda. The intervention could boost the slim prospects of getting Congress to act on climate change - which is widely seen as a precondition for a global deal.
In his letter to the UN, the state department climate change envoy, Todd Stern, said that America could cut carbon emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020.
However, he said, the commitment was contingent on Congress passing climate change legislation.
The letter reaffirms the promise Obama made to the summit last month to cutUS emissions and work for a global climate deal. It says the 2020 commitment was a first step towards cutting America's global warming pollution by 42% in 2030, and by more than 80% by the middle of the century.
"The US submission reflects President Obama's continued commitment to meeting the climate change and clean energy challenge through robust domestic and international action that will strengthen our economy, enhance our national security and protect our environment," Stern wrote.
He said America was acting on the assumption that other countries which signed the accord would take similar action.
"The United States is committed to working with our partners around the world to make the accord operational and to continue the effort to build a strong, effective, science-based, global regime to combat the profound threat of climate change," Stern wrote.
Under the slight, 12-paragraph, accord reached at Copenhagen, industrialised countries and the rapidly emerging economies like India and China were expected to offer formal notification of their plans to act on emissions by January 31.
However, the UN has since indicated that deadline is somewhat elastic, and there are fears that the momentum in the run-up to Copenhagen has fizzled away.
Obama offered some sense of movement in his speech, refusing to back down on climate agenda despite running into opposition from Republicans, as well as Democrats from oil and coal states, and the industrial heartland.
He told Congress he would carry on. "I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy, and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change," he said. "But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future. "
Obama's new vision for an energy and climate bill, spelled out on Wednesday, do not necessarily align with those of environmental groups or the liberal wing of his own Democratic party. He called for opening up new areas for offshore drilling and building more nuclear power plants.
But his willingness to recommit his administration to the energy agenda could boost the slim prospects of getting a climate change bill out of the Senate this year.
Democrat John Kerry and Republican Lindsey Graham have been lobbying hard among Republicans and conservative Democrats - as well as business leaders - to try and craft a compromise bill.
Obama, in his support for nuclear power and offshore drilling, hit on some of the components Kerry and Graham have been discussing. But several Senators told reporters they still thought it unlikely the Senate would take up energy and climate before the end of 2010.
[Environment > Hacked climate science emails]
University in hacked climate change emails row broke FOI rules
> Too late to take action, says deputy commissioner
> University of East Anglia 'will act as appropriate'
James Randerson
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 January 2010 22.26 GMT Article history
The University of East Anglia flouted Freedom of Information regulations in its handling of requests for data from climate sceptics, according to the government body that administers the act.
In a statement, the deputy information commissioner Graham Smith said emails between scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that were hacked and placed on the internet in November revealed that FOI requests were "not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation".
Some of the hacked emails reveal scientists encouraging their colleagues to delete emails, apparently to prevent them from being revealed to people making FOI requests. Such a breach of the act could carry an unlimited fine, but Smith said no action could be taken against the university because the specific request they had looked at happened in May 2008, well outside the six-month limit for such prosecutions under the act.
The hacked emails have created an international argument that has fuelled climate scepticism and led to questions about the operation of the UN's climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The circumstances surrounding the hacking and the actions of the scientists are the subject of an independent inquiry commissioned by the university and headed by Sir Muir Russell, formerly a civil servant and principal and vice chancellor of Glasgow University.
The pronouncement by the Information Commissioner's Office is likely to carry significant weight with the inquiry. The illegal hack is separately also being investigated by Norfolk police.
"I think that is an extremely serious charge," said Phil Willis, the Liberal Democrat MP who chairs the parliamentary science and technology select committee, which is conducting its own inquiry. He said that Smith's statement would be investigated by both the select committee and Russell's inquiry. "I don't think you can have the inquiry unless you have all the issues relating to it out in the open."
Willis said it would be wrong if there could be no legal sanction had the FOI act been breached. "Given the seriousness of this issue, the fact that it has caused global consternation, and has given ammunition to the climate sceptics – to have such a serious breach and for there to be no recourse in law requires urgent attention by the government."
He urged the university to be open with the data that was being requested. "If there has been a breach in this situation then the most honourable thing for the university to do would be to honour the request in its totality with all speed," said Willis.
Smith's statement refers to an FOI request from a retired engineer and climate sceptic in Northampton called David Holland. The CRU had been bombarded with similar requests for data, and the hacked emails between scientists suggest they were extremely frustrated with having to deal with them.
In response to the request, Dr Caspar Ammann, a scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, wrote back to three scientists, including the CRU's director, Dr Phil Jones: "Oh MAN! Will this crap ever end??"
In his statement, Smith said that Holland's request was not dealt with correctly by the university. "The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information."
But he added that it was now too late to take action because the legislation requires that sanctions are imposed within six months of the offence. "The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. It is important to note that the ICO enforces the law as it stands – we do not make it."
He said he would be advising UEA on its legal obligations. "We will also be studying the investigation reports [by Sir Muir Russell and Norfolk police], and we will then consider what regulatory action, if any, should then be taken under the Data Protection Act."
Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham research institute on climate Change and the environment at the London School of Economics, said: "I think that anybody reading the emails that have been posted online will have concluded that some of those showed an intention to avoid complying with the FOI. I always thought that those emails were the most damning.
"I think this is quite damaging. It remains to be seen why these requests were not handled properly. I think regardless of any action by the information commissioner, the university should clearly take appropriate action in response to this."
A spokesperson for the University of East Anglia said that it was not aware of Smith's statement. "The way Freedom of Information requests have been handled is one of the main areas being explored by Sir Muir Russell's independent review. We have already made clear that the findings of the review will be made public and that we will act as appropriate on its recommendations," she said.
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます