HONR 286A Commission on Energy Policy: US Energy Dependence and International Cooperation , Exams of School management&administration

Download HONR 286A Commission on Energy Policy: US Energy Dependence and International Cooperation and more Exams School management&administration in PDF only on Docsity! HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 1 “It falls to the government to ensure the continued sustainability of the American enterprise.” A policy Mark Kevin Hall and Avi Daniel Mayer Dr. Doug Hamilton HONR 268A – Terrestrial Energy Resources and Policy December 2005 POLICY TASK FORCE FINAL STATEMENT INTRODUCTION (A. M.) s the nation finds itself faced with the challenge of providing for its energy needs, it falls to the government to ensure the continued sustainability of the American enterprise. This task force has been charged with studying the government’s role in stimulating and maintaining the world’s largest economic force. In so doing, we have investigated the roles of both the executive branch and the national legislature in addressing the nation’s energy needs. We have studied various legislative initiatives and policy proposals and have sought to present a meaningful portrayal of the options facing policymakers. At the same time, we have set our sights abroad, seeking to determine what policies have been adopted by our friends overseas and to weigh their applicability here at home. The following pages are a summary of our findings. Presented here are the background and current state of each option, as well as the prospects of future development and initiative. It is our hope that this presentation will serve to clarify the options and challenges faced by our national leadership. HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 2 “The impact of the embargo on the United States was swift and severe.” B national policy ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY (A. M.) efore we engage in a discussion of the specific options facing our government, it is important that we clarify the background of the issue and its origins in the national consciousness. In particular, we will study the relationship between the United States’ dependence on foreign energy sources and its national security and trace the determination of successive U.S. administrations to resolve the matter in a comprehensive and decisive fashion. The United States’ awareness of the relationship between its dependence on foreign oil and its national security can be clearly traced to the 1973 Yom Kippur war between the Arab states and Israel and particularly to the supply disruptions instituted by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) as a means of deterring nation-clients from supporting the Jewish State. President Richard M. Nixon’s request on October 8, 1973 that Congress provide funds for an immediate airlift to Israel was met with the announcement of a total embargo on petroleum exports to the United States by Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal. On November 5 of that year, OPEC announced a punitive 25 percent output cut and threatened a further cut of five percent.1 The impact of the embargo on the United States was swift and severe. On November 27, President Richard Nixon signed the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act, tightening the regulation of oil in the United States through the imposition of price, HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 5 “Daylight-saving just brings a smile to everybody’s faces.” REP. EDWARD MARKEY by none other than Benjamin Franklin, who recommended opening and closing shops earlier in order to save the cost of lighting. The first law establishing DST in the United States was signed by President Woodrow Wilson in 1918, after a number of European countries instituted a similar measure during the course of World War I. The law both established U.S. time zones and set summer DST to commence on March 31. It was repealed one year later due to general unpopularity. The policy was instituted year-round by President Franklin Roosevelt during World War II and was again repealed following the war.7 The 1974 measure was equally unpopular and it was not renewed in 1975. In 1986, however, President Ronald Reagan signed Public Law 99-359, setting DST from the first Sunday in April through the last Sunday in October — a policy that endures today.8 Earlier this year, Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.), introduced an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) that would have extended DST by two months. Though Markey made a number of curious statements on the matter—including an assertion that DST “just brings a smile to everybody’s faces”—his and Upton’s primary justification for the amendment was the suggestion that such a measure would translate into savings of some 100,000 barrels of oil per day (approximately half of one percent of the nation’s daily consumption of 23 million barrels). Markey and Upton’s reasoning was, however, based on flawed data. Indeed, the information upon which they based their justification for the measure was culled from Department of Energy and Department of Transportation studies conducted during the 1974 and 1975 trial years, which had, at the time, suggested a daily savings of 10,000 barrels. Newer studies have challenged those findings and they are no longer cited or deemed HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 6 “There have been dramatic changes… that raise serious questions about extrapolating conclusions from our studies into today’s world.” LINDA LAWSON, DOT relevant by government agencies. In 2001, then-acting deputy assistant secretary for transportation policy in the DoT, Linda Lawson cautioned members of Congress against drawing conclusions based upon the old data. “I want to note that these studies are over 25 years old and were limited in scope,” she told the committee. “Congress captured many of the benefits identified in our studies in the legislative changes to daylight saving time enacted in 1986. There have been dramatic changes in lifestyle and commerce since we completed our studies that raise serious questions about extrapolating conclusions from our studies into today’s world.” During California’s 2001 energy crisis, the state’s energy commission did study the potential benefits of DST. As commission assistant executive director Claudia Chandler later reported, the results seemed encouraging but were essentially misleading. “Our report indicated that if we [extended] daylight saving time through all of March, there would be a decline of electricity use at peak hours of about 3.5 percent,” she said. “However, overall electricity use would only decline about one half of a percent. You're basically shifting non-critical energy use to later in the day.” When the Markey-Upton amendment was proposed in early 2005, a broad coalition of groups representing parents associations, religious organizations, the aviation industry, computing giants, dairy farmers and others rose in opposition.9 It ultimately passed in a reduced format, mandating only a one-month extension of daylight-saving time subject to the findings of a DoE study on the matter. The new policy will be instituted no earlier than 2007. HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 7 C “Conservation is not just something on a national level, but on an individual level as well. This is a joint effort.” CONSERVATION (M. H.) onservation is very important for the future of our energy supply. Right now, the United States is the number one producer of greenhouse gas emissions in the entire world. This is clearly linked to our lack of conservation in many areas. Conservation is something that can be aided with the help of legislation. It is important to note, however, that conservation is not just something on a national level, but on an individual level as well. This is a joint effort. On a national level, we must do a better job of conserving. We have made some gains over the years though. The creation of the energy star program in 1992 was a positive step. Energy star encourages companies to make more efficient products, which is conserving our energy. Most recently, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Strategic Petroleum Reserves was expanded from 700 million gallons of oil to 1 billion gallons of oil. While these are steps in the right direction, we must do more as a country to conserve more. One idea is to give energy star more power. If it were necessary instead of voluntary for a company to abide by the energy star specifications, we would conserve more energy. A major area where we need to conserve more is the transportation sector. In order to get this country to conserve, it is an area that legislation must focus on. First is the issue of fuel efficiency. If fuel efficiency were increased, less energy would be wasted. Although there are tax breaks for driving a hybrid, there is more than can be done. Also, the use of public transportation needs to be encouraged. HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 10 O Energy star is not limited to products in homes. There are other public applications of energy star. Energy star pushed to put LEDs (light emitting diodes) in traffic lights15. LEDs are more energy efficient. A typical LED can last 20 years before it needs to be replaced. That is much better than any fluorescent or incandescent light bulb. Although an LED can match the brightness of an incandescent light bulb, it still gives off much less heat16. Energy star is benefiting the United States greatly. It has saved this country from spending even more money on energy. The EPA estimates that energy star saved the United States 10 billion dollars on energy in 2004. In addition to that, energy star is good for the environment. The EPA also estimates they saved enough energy to power 24 million homes and avoided greenhouse gas emissions equal to those of the emissions of 20 million cars. The EPA has done a good job in helping the country be more energy efficient. The EPA’s fuel economy test keeps this country’s vehicles from wasting too much energy. The energy star program pushes companies to create energy efficient products. Although the EPA has done a lot, we believe it can do more. If the EPA were given more power, they would be able to regulate companies’ energy efficiency better. If the energy star program stopped being a voluntary program and became mandatory, it would save the United States even more money. Emissions would be reduced. If the EPA’s fuel economy test became stricter, our cars would pollute less. With more power, the EPA could do an even better job than it is already doing. ENERGY POLICY ACT (M. H.) n August 8, 2005 the Energy Policy Act of 2005 became law. This energy policy act covered many areas, including transportation, nuclear energy, coal, HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 11 “Some people also found problems with the act.” oil, and renewable energy. As a result of the act, a total of 14.5 billion dollars in new or extended tax breaks. Although this act took 5 years and over 1,700 pages, there are people who believe that this act is not enough. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 covered almost all types of energy. The act addressed nuclear energy. The act provides for greater federal backing and insurance for the construction of new nuclear power plants. Renewable, low carbon energy is also mentioned in the new policy. Tax incentives will be given for wind, biomass, landfill gas, and geothermal sectors. Coal will receive 1.8 billion dollars. This money is to be spent on funding clean coal technology. A total of 60% of the 1.8 billion dollars must be used in the area of coal gasification17. The new energy policy also covers the transportation sector. Tax incentives will be provided for people who use hybrids or clean-diesel vehicles. Later down the line, incentives will also be provided for hydrogen fuel cells. This is projected to be a possibility in the next 15 years. The bill also covered the kind of gasoline used. Ethanol and other renewable fuel additives must constitute an increasing portion of gasoline, from 5 billion gallons yearly in 2010 to 7.5 billion in 201218. The Clean Cities program will receive 200 million dollars. This program offers grants to state and local governments for alternative fuel vehicles. The Clean Buses program, which adds pollution control technology to buses or replaces them with cleaner fueled ones, will receive 300 million dollars. Although the Energy Policy Act did a good job in pumping money into the various energy sectors, some people also found problems with the act. One major problem is over 100 pounds of weapons-grade uranium may now be exported annually. Many people see this as a possible terrorist problem19. An HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 12 A issue for environmentalists is the amount of money that was given to coal. Coal is known as the dirtiest of our energy sources. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 had the potential to give renewable energy a boost. Instead, it dropped the idea of requiring 10% of U.S. energy to be renewable by 2020. In addition to that, it only extended the current wind power incentives by two years. In the transportation sector, there was an opportunity to increase fuel efficiency standards. That opportunity, however, was not realized due to concerns over job losses and vehicle safety20. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a step in the right direction for this country. It covered almost every energy sector. Unfortunately, there were problems with the act. It missed an opportunity to increase renewable energy usage and improve fuel efficiency. Although almost every sector was covered, there will be many people who feel that the bill did not do enough. We must realize that the Energy Policy Act is progress, but that it cannot stop there. Energy reform must continue. If we do not continue to act on this issue, the American energy plan will be in serious trouble in the future. WINDFALL PROFITS AND POLICY OPTIONS (A. M.) s energy prices rose sharply in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the debate over the profits earned by oil companies erupted anew. A public opinion poll conducted by a leading news publication in October of this year found that a staggering 44 percent of Americans held U.S. oil companies responsible for the rise in oil prices – nearly double the number who attributed the increase to the weather itself.21 Indeed, oil companies have reported record earnings in recent months, with the five largest corporations—Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum (BP) Amoco, Royal Dutch Shell, HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 15 A “We cannot ignore the importance of international cooperation in addressing the issue.” As Federal Trade Commission Chair Deborah Majoras said, “[W]hile no consumers like price increases, in fact, price increases lower demand and help make the shortage shorter- lived than it otherwise would have been.”24 looking abroad INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: AN OVERVIEW (A. M.) s we discuss the domestic policy options faced by our government, we cannot ignore the importance of international cooperation in addressing the issue, nor the high regard in which successive U.S. administrations and Congresses have held such cooperation. The Department of Energy outlines the specific advantages to international cooperation. “Cooperation in science and technology plays a vital role in the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, arms control, meeting the challenges of global threats and large-scale problems, providing a framework for promoting sustainable development, and strengthening the economic ties that underlie global stability,” reads a DoE statement on the matter.25 Tracing the gradual development of the Department’s international initiatives, the document depicts a Cold War-era agenda of solidifying relationships with allied countries HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 16 while simultaneously presenting opportunities for stability and cooperation with “adversaries.”26 Yet post-Cold War realities have brought about an alteration in the role and aims of international energy cooperation. Cooperative ventures are now regarded far differently. First, they are viewed as a means of developing the United States’ economic competitiveness by granting U.S. scientists access to foreign research. Second, they are considered important for the establishment of international relationships vital for the solution of such large-scale contemporary problems as AIDS, global climate change and the proliferation of nuclear materials. Finally, international energy cooperation augments shrinking public research budgets by leveraging publicly funded research through information sharing and technology cooperation.27 Successive U.S. administrations have spoken of the vital part of international cooperation in confronting domestic energy concerns. Various statements issued by President Bill Clinton’s during his visits abroad highlighted the importance of bilateral energy cooperation. Current White House publications on President George W. Bush’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, launched during his 2003 State of the Union address, suggest that the initiative’s success will be enhanced by—if not require—foreign collaboration: “The United States will pursue international cooperation to affect a more rapid, coordinated advance for this technology that could lead to the elimination of air pollutants and a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector worldwide.” On April 28, 2003, Secretary Spencer Abraham told an International Energy Agency conference that although the U.S. was embarking on large-scale initiatives aimed at addressing the country’s needs, domestic development alone would not be sufficient. “Despite these efforts, our administration knows that such steps, though important, are not HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 17 “A successful example of energy cooperation may be found in the government- level research and development relationship between the United States and the State of Israel.” enough. It is critical that we collaborate with you on an international basis to address challenges that face all of us in the 21st century.” A successful example of energy cooperation may be found in the government-level research and development relationship between the United States and the State of Israel. The U.S. Department of Energy signed a Memorandum of Understanding (or, MoU) with the Israeli Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure in 1984, for cooperation on energy R&D. The MoU provided for the exchange of scientists and researchers for collaboration on joint R&D projects between the two countries. Three years later, in 1987, the DoE and the Israel Ministry of Science and Development signed an MoU on basic energy sciences, which was renewed in 1996 and again in 2005. In 1993, President Clinton and Prime Minister Rabin announced their intention to create the U.S.-Israel Science and Technology Commission, with each country contributing $15 million towards its establishment. Three further agreements were signed in 2000 – one on general energy cooperation, one on the development and demonstration of renewable energy technologies and one on the research and development of electric and hybrid buses. Joint ventures supported by the U.S.-Israel Science and Technology Commission and other cooperative bodies have produced numerous findings vital to the development of new renewable energy strategies. In one notable example, the Boeing Company is cooperating with two Israeli firms as well as the Weizmann Institute of Science to develop the first system of its kind to use solar energy to directly power electricity-generating gas turbines HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 20 55% of Annex I countries to ratify it30. After the United States pulled out, the protocol was in serious jeopardy. On November 18, 2004, Russia ratified the Kyoto Protocol and it finally had enough Annex I countries to proceed31. On February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect with a total of 156 member nations. The nations who were part of the Kyoto Protocol had now made a serious commitment. Between the years of 2008 and 2012, they were to reach their goals of greenhouse gas emissions. When the protocol was put into effect, the Compliance Committee was also created. This Compliance Committee has two parts, a facilitative branch and the enforcement branch32. The facilitative branch’s job is to help member nations reach and attain their goals. They do this by offering advice and by warning a country when it appears their ability to reach their goal is in jeopardy. The enforcement branch is set up to do just what its title says, enforce the protocol. There are penalties for a member nation not meeting its goals. First, the country has to make up the difference over the next period. Next, they will have to cut their emissions over the next period by an additional 30%. They will also not be able to sell carbon credits, a useful tool for nations that will be discussed in further detail shortly. In addition to this, if a member of the European Union does not meet its goal, the Union will fine that nation. Each member nation of the Kyoto Protocol must come up with a plan for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. One of the main ways countries will try to do this is carbon credit trading. The idea of carbon credit trading is that it puts a price on polluting. Each country is given a certain amount of credits that it is allowed to use. If a country is polluting less and doesn’t need all of its credits, then it can sell them to another country that needs it. Carbon credit trading makes it cost effective to not pollute. Carbon credit trading is already in effect for a lot of the member nations. HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 21 “While it is true that the developed nations have been polluting more and longer than the developing nations, it is not true that developing nations do not pollute a lot now.” It is a misconception that India and China are not members of the Kyoto Protocol. They are both members, but because they were labeled developing countries they do not have the same emission restrictions as Annex I nations. India ratified the protocol in August of 2002. India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh has defended the Kyoto Protocol’s position on developing countries, saying that it is the developed nations who have done most of the emissions in the past33. That brings up the theory of common, but differentiated responsibility. The idea is that developed nations have been polluting for a long time. Because of this, developed were the ones who are responsible for the state the world is in today. China ratified the Kyoto Protocol in September of 2002. Although China isn’t held to the same standards that developed nations are held to, it still has made some efforts to cut back emissions. China just recently signed a deal that will cut millions of tons of emissions from its chemical plants34. China will profit off of selling its carbon credits to other nations that need them. There are a lot of positive aspects of Kyoto. Getting over 150 nations to agree to lower their greenhouse gas emissions is no small accomplishment. The goals of the protocol are strong, and the world will benefit greatly if the member nations are successful. There are, however, problems with Kyoto. One problem is common but differentiated responsibility. While it is true that the developed nations have been polluting more and longer than the developing nations, it is not true that developing nations do not pollute a lot now. China is currently the second largest polluting country behind the United States. If current trends continue, China will pass the United States in the next 25 years. It is important for all HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 22 O countries to work together to confront the global problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Another problem is the ability of the Kyoto Protocol to enforce its rules. The current punishments for a country that does not meet its goals involve making that country have to do more later on. The problem with that is if the country is already having problems reaching a small goal, then it will also have problems reaching a larger one later on. Also, there is nothing to prevent a country from just backing out. CARBON CREDIT TRADING IN THE EU (M. H.) n January 1, 2005, the European Union’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme went into effect. This scheme has two periods to it, from 2005 to 2007 and from 2008 to 201235. After the first period, the EU will evaluate their trading scheme and figure out if the system is working enough to continue using. When it first went into effect, 12,000 plants were given credits to buy and sell36. The nations of the EU set up electronic registries so that all of the credits can be tracked. Not stopping there, the EU also tracks all transactions involving carbon credits37. European countries need these transactions so that they can either profit off of selling credits, or gain more credits so that they aren’t over their limit. If a company does go over its limit, it will be punished. The current punishment for a company polluting more than it is allowed to is 40 euros per extra ton. If and when the European Union implements the second phase of its carbon credit program, the punishment will be raised to 100 euros per extra ton38. In addition to being charged for extra tons, a country will lose some of their carbon credits. For the first phase, the EU gave out 95% of the credits to companies for free. In the second phase that number will be reduced to 90%. Currently, companies are allowed to purchase additional permits at around 10 euros a ton39. HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 25 “The role of the government in ensuring the continued viability of the American dream is one that must evolve in accordance with developments at home and overseas.” matter, but the time has come to take a long, hard look at the options that lie before our nation and our government. Expanding daylight-saving time is not the way to go. Whatever benefits are inherent in daylight-saving have already been collected. Any further expansion would impact too many groups and individuals in a negative way and would produce only negligible gains. Conservation on both the individual and national level is a national imperative. Tax incentive programs ought to be expanded and the utilization of public transportation encouraged. Consumers are urged to weigh products bearing the Energy Star emblem more favorably, and to bear in mind matters of fuel efficiency when purchasing private vehicles. The Environmental Protection Agency has long been at the forefront of our nation’s fight for increased energy efficiency, yet it can do even more. With increased powers of regulation and enforcement, the EPA can impose and maintain tighter controls on corporate polluters. At the same time, its fuel economy test must be adjusted in order to ensure its maximum effectiveness and the possibility of mandating the Energy Star by law ought to be studied. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a step in the right direction, but fell short in a number of areas. Lawmakers failed to seize the opportunity to increase renewable energy usage and improve fuel efficiency standards. The nation cannot be content with the Act’s provisions; reform must continue. HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 26 A limited windfall tax should certainly be considered, but rather than returning the revenue directly to consumers, it should be invested in the research and development of alternative fuels and higher efficiency initiatives, as determined by lawmakers. International cooperation with our democratic allies ought to form a cornerstone of our nation’s energy policy. The thriving relationship between the United States and Israel should be looked to as an example of mutually beneficial cooperation and it should be further broadened in tandem with the development of additional international relationships. The Kyoto Protocol was a noble attempt at bringing together a world faced with the common challenge of a shared and repeatedly assailed atmosphere. Yet it falls short in the equity of its provisions and in the enforceability of its statutes. It would be irresponsible for the United States to join the Protocol at this time, but a national program to bring the country in line with the treaty’s stated goals should be adopted in order to enable the United States to play a leading role in the development and implementation of Kyoto’s successor. Finally, the European Union’s carbon credit trading ought to be looked-to as a model for a similar U.S. system. A federally-mandated program to distribute credits and hold violators accountable would be in our nation’s best interests and would stimulate the adoption of similar programs by our friends overseas. In all, the role of the government in ensuring the continued viability of the American dream is one that must evolve in accordance with developments at home and overseas. The options and challenges facing lawmakers are many and varied, but a concerted effort on the part of citizens, corporations and government will ultimately benefit the entire nation now and for many years to come. HONR 286A COMMISSION ON ENERGY POLICY Hall and Mayer 27 NOTES 1 “1973 Oil Crisis.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. June 22, 2004. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis> 2 Ibid. 3 Jimmy Carter, Jr. “The President's Proposed Energy Policy.” April 18, 1977. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 14, May 1, 1977, pp. 418-420. 4 Ronald Wilson Reagan. “Message to the Congress Reporting on Petroleum Imports and Energy Security.” January 3, 1989. Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Archives. 5 “Remarks by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Democratic Presidential Candidate at the Democratic National Convention.” Federal News Service. July 29, 2004. 6 George Walker Bush. “State of the Union Address.” February 2, 2005. The White House – Office of the Press Secretary. 7 WebExhibits – Daylight Saving Time. 8 Wikipedia – Daylight saving time 9 Avi Mayer. “Jewish groups fight time change: Observant Jews pray time change won’t harm their morning worship.” JTA, August. 2, 2005. 10 Fuel Efficiency 11 Environmental Protection Agency 12 Fuel Economy 13 Fuel Economy 14 What Is Energy Star? 15 Environmental Protection Agency 16 Light-Emitting Diode 17 U.S. House Committee 18 U.S. House Committee 19 Weinberger 35 20 U.S. House Committee 21 Stephanie I. Cohen. “Furor Over Oil-Industry Windfall Puts GOP to the Test.” Investor’s Business Daily 4 Nov. 2005. 12 Nov. 2005. 22 Ibid. and Isidore, Chris. “Oil Industry Under Fire.” CNN Money. 28 Oct. 2005. 12 Nov. 2005. 23 “The Windfall Profit Tax.” Editorial. The New York Times. 9 Nov. 2005. 12 Nov. 2005 24 Associated Press. “In Heated Hearings, Oil Bosses Defend Big Profits.” MSNBC.com. 9 Nov. 2005. 12 Nov. 2005 25 U.S. Department of Energy – International Agreements Handbook – 2000 Edition 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Kyoto Protocol 29 Kyoto Protocol 30 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 31 Kyoto Protocol 32 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 33 Kyoto Protocol 34 China Firms, World Bank in $930 mln emissions deal 35 EU to Launch Second Climate Change Programme 36 Climate Change 37 EU-ETS 38 EU Market Overview 39 EU to Launch Second Climate Change Programme 40 EU Market Overview 41 Climate Change