|
Showing 1 - 7 of
7 matches in All Departments
Recent congressional interest in U.S. energy policy has focused in
part on ways through which the United States could secure more
economical and reliable crude oil resources both domestically and
internationally. Many forecasters identify petroleum refined from
Canadian oil sands as one possible solution. Increased petroleum
production from Canadian oil sands, however, is not without
controversy, as many have expressed concern over the potential
environmental impacts. These impacts may include increased water
and natural gas use, disturbance of mined land, effects on wildlife
and water quality, trans-boundary air pollution, and emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHG) during extraction and processing. A number
of key studies in recent literature have expressed findings that
GHG emissions from the production of Canadian oil sands crudes may
be higher than those of other crudes imported, refined, and
consumed in the United States. The studies identify two main
reasons for the increase: (1) oil sands are heavier and more
viscous than lighter crude oil types on average, and thus require
more energy- and resourceintensive activities to extract; and (2)
oil sands are compositionally deficient in hydrogen, and have a
higher carbon, sulfur, and heavy metal content than lighter crude
oil types on average, and thus require more processing to yield
consumable fuels.
Climate change policies at both the national and international
levels have traditionally focused on measures to mitigate
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to adapt to the actual or
anticipated impacts of changes in the climate. As a participant in
several international agreements on climate change, the United
States has joined with other nations to express concern about
climate change. However, in the absence of a national climate
change policy, some recent technological advances and hypotheses,
generally referred to as "geoengineering" technologies, have
created alternatives to these traditional approaches. If deployed,
these new technologies could modify the Earth's climate on a large
scale. Moreover, these new technologies may become available to
foreign governments and entities in the private sector to use
unilaterally-without authorization from the United States
government or an international treaty-as was done in the summer of
2012 when an American citizen conducted an ocean fertilization
experiment off the coast of Canada. The term "geoengineering"
describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale
and deliberate modifications of the Earth's energy balance, to
reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change.
Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research
stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has
yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published
that document the cost, environmental effects, sociopolitical
impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If
geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected
to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.
In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a
carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management
(SRM) method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse
gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR
methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and
sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the
reflectivity of the Earth's atmosphere or surface. Aerosol
injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods.
SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but
can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling
results compared to CDR methods. To date, there is limited federal
involvement in, or oversight of, geoengineering. However, some
states as well as some federal agencies, notably the Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture,
and the Department of Defense, have taken actions related to
geoengineering research or projects. At the international level,
there is no international agreement or organization governing the
full spectrum of possible geoengineering activities. Nevertheless,
provisions of many international agreements, including those
relating to climate change, maritime pollution, and air pollution,
would likely inform the types of geoengineering activities that
state parties to these agreements might choose to pursue. In 2010,
the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted provisions calling
for member parties to abstain from geoengineering unless the
parties have fully considered the risks and impacts of those
activities on biodiversity. With the possibility that
geoengineering technologies may be developed and that climate
change will remain an issue of global concern, policymakers may
determine whether geoengineering warrants attention at either the
federal or international level. If so, policymakers will also need
to consider whether geoengineering can be effectively addressed by
amendments to existing laws and international agreements or,
alternatively, whether new laws and international treaties would
need to be developed.
If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline would transport crude oil
(e.g., synthetic crude oil or diluted bitumen) derived from oil
sands in Alberta, Canada to destinations in the United States.
Because the pipeline crosses an international border, it requires a
Presidential Permit that is issued by the Department of State
(DOS). The permit decision rests on a "national interest"
determination, a term not defined in the authorizing Executive
Orders. DOS states that it has "significant discretion" in the
factors it examines in this determination. Key events related to
the Presidential Permit include: September 19, 2008: TransCanada
submitted an application for a Presidential Permit for its Keystone
XL pipeline. November 10, 2011: DOS announced it needed additional
information concerning alternative pipeline routes through the
Nebraska Sandhills. January 18, 2012: In response to a legislative
mandate in P.L. 112-78, DOS, with the President's consent,
announced its denial of the Keystone XL permit. May 4, 2012:
TransCanada submitted a revised permit application to DOS. Although
some groups have opposed previous oil pipeline permits, opposition
to the Keystone XL proposal has generated substantially more
interest among environmental stakeholders. Pipeline opponents are
not a monolithic group: some raise concerns about potential local
impacts, such as oil spills or extraction impacts in Canada; some
argue the pipeline would have national energy and climate change
policy implications. A number of key studies indicate that oil
sands crude has a higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity
than many other forms of crude oil. The primary reason for the
higher intensity: oil sands are heavy oils with a high viscosity,
requiring more energy- and resource intensive activities to
extract. However, analytical results vary due to different modeling
assumptions. Moreover, industry stakeholders point out that many
analyses indicate that GHG emissions from oil sands crude oil are
comparable to other heavy crudes, some of which are produced and/or
consumed in the United States. Because of oil sands' increased
emissions intensity, further oil sands development runs counter to
some stakeholders' energy and climate change policy objectives.
These objectives may vary based on differing views concerning the
severity of climate change risk and/or the need for significant
mitigation efforts. Opponents worry that oil sands crude oil will
account for a greater percentage of U.S. oil consumption over time,
making GHG emissions reduction more difficult. On the other hand,
neither issuance of a Presidential Permit nor increased oil sands
development would preclude the implementation of energy/climate
policies that would support less carbon intensive fuels or energy
efficiency improvements. A primary local/regional environmental
concern of any oil pipeline is the risk of a spill. Environmental
groups have argued that both the pipeline's operating parameters
and the material being transported imposes an increased risk of
spill. Industry stakeholders have been critical of these
assertions. To examine the concerns, Congress included provisions
in P.L. 112-90 requiring a review of current oil pipeline
regulations and a risk analysis of oil sands crude. Opponents of
the Keystone XL pipeline and oil sands development often highlight
the environmental impacts that pertain to the region in which the
oil sands resources are extracted. Potential impacts include, among
others, land disturbance and water resource issues. In general,
these local/regional impacts from Canadian oil sands development
may not directly affect public health or the environment in the
United States. Within the context of a Presidential Permit, the
mechanism to consider local Canadian impacts is unclear.
The United States contributes funding to various international
financial institutions to assist developing countries to address
global climate change and other environmental concerns. Congress is
responsible for several activities in this regard, including (1)
authorizing periodic appropriations for U.S. financial
contributions to the institutions, and (2) overseeing U.S.
involvement in the programs. Issues of congressional interest
include the overall development assistance strategy of the United
States, U.S. leadership in global environmental and economic
affairs, and U.S. commercial interests in trade and investment.
This report provides an overview of one of the oldest international
financial institutions for the environment-the Global Environment
Facility (GEF)-and analyzes its structure, funding, and objectives
in light of the many challenges within the contemporary landscape
of global environmental finance. GEF is an independent and
international financial organization that provides grants, promotes
cooperation, and fosters actions in developing countries to protect
the global environment. Established in 1991, it unites 182 member
governments and partners with international institutions,
nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to assist
developing countries with environmental projects related to six
areas: biodiversity, climate change, international waters, the
ozone layer, land degradation, and persistent organic pollutants.
GEF receives funding from multiple donor countries-including the
United States-and provides grants to cover the additional or
"incremental" costs associated with transforming a project with
national benefits into one with global environmental benefits. In
this way, GEF funding is structured to "supplement" base project
funding and provide for the environmental components in national
development agendas. GEF partners with several international
agencies, including the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), among others, and is the
primary fund administrator for four Rio (Earth Summit) Conventions,
including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), and
the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).
GEF also establishes operational guidance for international waters
and ozone activities, the latter consistent with the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and its
amendments. Since its inception, GEF has allocated $11.5
billion-supplemented by more than $57 billion in cofinancing-for
more than 3,200 projects in over 165 countries. GEF is one
mechanism in a larger network of international programs designed to
address the global environment. Accordingly, its effectiveness
depends on how the fund addresses programmatic issues, builds upon
national investment plans, reacts to recent developments in the
financial landscape, and responds to emerging opportunities.
Critics contend that the existing system has had limited impact in
addressing major environmental concerns-specifically climate change
and tropical deforestation-and has been unsuccessful in delivering
global transformational change. A desire to achieve more immediate
impacts has led to a restructuring of the Multilateral Development
Banks' (MDBs') role in environmental finance and the introduction
of many new bilateral and multilateral funding initiatives. The
future of GEF remains in the hands of the donor countries,
including the United States, which can choose to broaden the
mandate and/or strengthen its institutional arrangements or reduce
and replace it by other bilateral or multilateral funding
mechanisms.
|
You may like...
Catan
(16)
R1,150
R887
Discovery Miles 8 870
|