President Obama's G20 remarks and the Keystone XL Pipeline

US President Barack Obama at the G20 summit in Australia on Saturday built on the momentum of a recent surprise announcement of a deal between China and the US to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. News outlets (e.g., see here, here, and here) report that President Obama brought the issue of climate change back to the fore, despite the efforts of host nation Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott to leave climate change out of the summit altogether. As the Guardian reports:

...in a one-two manoeuvre that caught Australia off guard, Obama upstaged Abbott and made certain it was the talk of the conference anyway. First came the joint US/China post-2020 greenhouse emission reduction targets announced in Beijing on the eve of the summit and then the $3bn Green Climate Fund pledge made in a keynote speech as Abbott was greeting other world leaders across town.

It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, President Obama's recent outspokenness on climate change might have on his decision on whether to approve TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would be used to ship bituminous crude oil from Alberta's burgeoning tar sands developments to refineries along the US Gulf Coast. On the one hand, the US agreement with China, along with President Obama's remarks in Australia, have been praised by the president's environmentalist supporters. These efforts might grant the president leeway to approve the pipeline without entirely losing their support. On the other hand, environmentalists might accuse the president of only paying lip service to climate change mitigation efforts while failing to take a stand when given a "real" opportunity.

How "real" an opportunity to take a stand rejecting the pipeline would be is a subject of debate among industry supporters, environmentalists, the US Department of State, and the White House. Industry supporters back the pipeline and point to the jobs it will create and the reduced dependence on foreign oil it will enable. Environmentalists contend the pipeline will lock in the full development of Alberta's tar sands, for which energy-intensive production methods are required to produce crude oil. The US Department of State, for its part, has claimed in its environmental impact assessments that building the pipeline will have a negligible effect on climate change since Alberta's tar sands are likely to be fully developed anyway. And the White House has hinted recently that President Obama might veto the pipeline even if the House of Representatives and Senate both approve of constructing it. Moreover, the White House has contended in the past that approving the pipeline is the president's decision alone to make since the proposed route crosses an international border.

The failure of the recent Keystone XL Pipeline bill to pass a Senate vote is likely only a temporary reprieve for the White House. When Republicans take control of the Senate in January, President Obama is likely to see another bill pass in both houses of congress. The question is, what will the president decide: to reject the pipeline proposal and appease his environmentalist backers, or to approve it in exchange with congressional Republicans for concessions on other aspects of his policy agenda? Only time will tell. Whatever the president decides, environmentalists can already claim a small victory: delays in the approval process have nearly doubled the cost of the pipeline, raising overall project costs and making Alberta tar sands oil less competitive with alternative and renewable energy sources.

U.S. and China announce climate and clean energy deal

The U.S. and China have provided some encouraging news in international efforts to curb carbon emissions in an effort to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. According to a fact sheet released by the White House yesterday, President Obama committed the U.S. to reducing net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26-28% by 2025 over 2005 levels. In addition, President Xi announced for the first time China's intention to peak its overall CO2 emissions, by around 2030 or earlier. China is also committed to meeting 20% of its energy needs through renewable energy sources by 2030, according to the same fact sheet. 

The U.S. goal also commits the U.S. to a total carbon pollution reduction target, not just a reduction in emissions from electricity generation. 

When combined with the EU's target to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030, the goals of the U.S., China, and EU (whose combined emissions account for over 50% of all GHG emissions globally) taken collectively are widely viewed as a serious first step toward a low-carbon future.

Early reactions to the announcement among environmentalists have been positive. David Victor is quoted on the NY Times dot Earth blog as saying

This is exactly what is needed — credible pledges by groups of important countries that are rooted in a vision of the effort they will make together. If each country only does what makes sense from its individual interest then the outcome from international diplomacy isn’t much more than status quo. Serious cuts in emissions (and all the things that allow that — like a big rise in R and D) require collective action. And you get started on the complex and difficult task of collective action by starting in small groups that are focused on real actions.

This will be criticized as inadequate, and for the long haul it is. But what matters more is that it is credible and this is now the high water mark for serious Chinese pledges and engagement in the international process since China is probably the most pivotal player.

Whether the announced targets are significant enough to meet the globally agreed goal to limit warming to 2ºC by 2100 remains to be seen. But it's encouraging to see the world's two biggest emitters committing to serious action together.