COMENTÁRIO DE AXEL GRAEL:
Conforme temos mostrado aqui no Blog, a sorte do mundo é que as ideias reacionárias do presidente dos EUA, Donald Trump, contrário às medidas para reverter as mudanças climáticas, tem tido uma reação oposta de outras muitas lideranças influentes no país. É o que temos visto em estados, cidades e corporações norte-americanas, que estão tomando medidas inovadoras, corajosas e efetivas em favor do planeta. E, importante, que fazem questão de expressar a sua contrariedade e desaprovação com a visão do presidente do país.
As matérias abaixo mostram duas destas iniciativas importantes:
- NOVA YORK: O site do jornal britânico The Guardian publicou que o prefeito de Nova York, Bill de Blasio, decidiu desinvestir US$ 5 bilhões de atividades prejudiciais ao clima e anunciou que vai processar empresas petroleiras pelos danos que as mudanças climáticas causam à cidade e investimentos em prevenção que a cidade será obrigada a fazer.
- ESTADO DE WASHINGTON: O site do Seattle Times reporta a iniciativa do governador do estado de Washington, na costa oeste americana, que anunciou um plano para implantar um sistema de "Cap and Trade" para limitar e taxar as emissões de carbono, além de estabelecer um mercado para as reduções de emissão.
O problema climático é um grave problema e uma ameaça que poderemos estar legando às próximas gerações. Pelo o que os cientistas alertam, as mudanças são inexoráveis, mas cabe à atual geração reduzir os danos e providenciar a transição para uma economia de baixo carbono.
As duas matérias mostram que as ações existem, apesar da dificuldade dos avanços na escala diplomática mundial. E as principais mudanças vêm ocorrendo na escala local e regional.
É o caso de Niterói, que criou o Grupo Executivo de Mudanças Climáticas de Niterói (GE-CLIMA) e tem avançado em políticas públicas de responsabilidade climática, que teve como ponto de partida o inventário de emissões da cidade, recebeu reconhecimento da ONU pelas suas estratégias de resiliência (Programa Niterói Resiliente, da Defesa Civil) e incorpora a preocupação no seu planejamento e suas políticas públicas.
Um exemplo disso é o projeto-de-lei que a Prefeitura encaminhou ao legislativo municipal que cria o novo Plano Diretor de Niterói, que tem um capítulo dedicado a diretrizes urbanas relacionadas à segurança climática.
Axel Grael
Secretário Executivo
Prefeitura de Niterói
-------------------------------------------------------------1) NOVA YORK
 |
| Lower Manhattan was hit by a power cut during Superstorm Sandy in 2012. Photograph: Afton Almaraz/Getty Images |
Mayor Bill de Blasio: ‘It’s up to the fossil fuel companies whose greed put us in this position to shoulder the cost of making New York safer and more resilient’
New York City is seeking to lead the assault on climate change and the Trump administration with a plan to divest $5bn from fossil fuels and sue the world’s most powerful oil companies over their contribution to dangerous global warming.
City officials have set a goal of divesting New York’s $189bn pension funds from fossil fuel companies within five years in what they say would be “among the most significant divestment efforts in the world to date”. Currently, New York City’s five pension funds have about $5bn in fossil fuel investments. New York state has already announced it is exploring how to divest from fossil fuels.
“New York City is standing up for future generations by becoming the first major US city to divest our pension funds from fossil fuels,” said Bill de Blasio, New York’s mayor.
“At the same time, we’re bringing the fight against climate change straight to the fossil fuel companies that knew about its effects and intentionally misled the public to protect their profits. As climate change continues to worsen, it’s up to the fossil fuel companies whose greed put us in this position to shoulder the cost of making New York safer and more resilient.”
De Blasio said that the city is taking the five fossil fuel firms – BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell – to federal court due to their contribution to climate change.
Court documents state that New York has suffered from flooding and erosion due to climate change and because of looming future threats it is seeking to “shift the costs of protecting the city from climate change impacts back on to the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat”.
The court filing claims that just 100 fossil fuel producers are responsible for nearly two-thirds of all greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution, with the five targeted companies the largest contributors.
The case will also point to evidence that firms such as Exxon knew of the impact of climate change for decades, only to downplay and even deny this in public. New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, is investigating Exxon over this alleged deception.
New York was badly rattled by Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and faces costs escalating into the tens of billions of dollars in order to protect low-lying areas such as lower Manhattan and the area around JFK airport from being inundated by further severe storms fueled by rising sea levels and atmospheric warming. De Blasio’s office said climate change is “perhaps the toughest challenge New York City will face in the coming decades”.
New York’s lawsuit echoes a similar effort on the west coast, where two California counties and a city are suing 37 fossil fuel companies for knowingly emitting dangerous levels of greenhouse gases. One of those firms, Exxon, has complained that it has been targeted by a “collection of special interests and opportunistic politicians” as part of a “conspiracy” to force the company to comply with various political objectives.
The legal action and the divestment draw perhaps the starkest dividing line yet between New York and the Trump administration on climate change. Under Trump, the federal government has attempted the withdraw the US from the Paris climate accords, tear up Barack Obama’s signature climate policies and open up vast areas of America’s land and waters to coal, oil and gas interests.
De Blasio and the city comptroller, Scott Stringer, have come under pressure for several years from activists to rid New York’s pension funds of any link to fossil fuels, with some environmentalists claiming the city has been too slow to use its clout to tackle climate change.
Stringer admitted the divestment will be “complex” and will take some time but said the city’s pension funds could promote sustainability while also protecting the retirement of teachers, police officers and other city workers.
“New York City today becomes a capital of the fight against climate change on this planet,” said Bill McKibben, co-founder of climate group 350.org.
“With its communities exceptionally vulnerable to a rising sea, the city is showing the spirit for which it’s famous – it’s not pretending that working with the fossil fuel companies will somehow save the day, but instead standing up to them, in the financial markets and in court.”
Christiana Figueres, former UN climate chief and architect of the Paris climate agreement, added: “The exponential transition toward a fossil-fuel-free economy is unstoppable and local governments have a critical role to play. There is no time to lose.
“It’s therefore extremely encouraging to see NYC step up today.”
New York joins cities such as Washington DC and Cape Town in divesting, along with universities such as Stanford in California and Oxford in the UK. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, notable for its links to the past oil wealth of John D Rockefeller, has also sought to divest.
Fonte: The Guardian
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2) ESTADO DE WASHINGTON
2) ESTADO DE WASHINGTON
 |
| Gov. Jay Inslee looks up at the gallery after recognizing relatives during the start of his state of the state speech to a joint session of the Legislature in the Washington State House chambers. (Steve Ringman/The Seattle Times). |
Gov. Jay Inslee Tuesday released an ambitious plan to tax fossil-fuel emissions in Washington state. But will the Washington Legislature approve it?
By Hal Bernton and Joseph O’Sullivan
Seattle Times staff reporters
Seattle Times staff reporters
OLYMPIA — Gov. Jay Inslee Tuesday urged Washington lawmakers to embrace his ambitious plan to tax fossil-fuel emissions in Washington state.
In his State of the State address, the governor implored legislators to cast aside their reservations and adopt a plan to tackle climate change in this year’s short, 60-day legislative session.
“It is time to step up,” Inslee told lawmakers at the Capitol. The impacts of climate change, he added, “will be carried by our children, our economy, our security and our quality of life.”
But as in recent years, Inslee’s plan faces steep hurdles in Olympia.
Republicans remain adamantly opposed to a carbon tax, and Democrats have been divided over what such a plan should look like.
Inslee’s proposal would levy a $20-a-ton price on carbon emissions, said Reed Schuler, an Inslee policy adviser. That price would rise over time.
The billions of dollars raised would support clean-energy projects, work to improve floodwater management and reduce risks of wildfires, and assistance to offset the tax’s impact on low-income communities.
The state would start collecting the revenue in the 2020 budget year, with $726 million generated that year. The tax would raise a total of $3.3 billion over four years.
The governor first mentioned a carbon tax in the proposed supplemental budget he rolled out last month. In that plan, he said $950 million would go toward replenishing budget reserves he proposed spending on K-12 education, to satisfy the Washington Supreme Court order called the McCleary decision.
With the tax, residential natural-gas prices could increase about 10 percent in 2020, and gasoline prices could rise between 6 and 9 percent, said Lauren McCloy, a policy adviser for Inslee.
Electricity costs could increase 4 to 5 percent, although it would likely be less for Seattle consumers who are served largely by hydropower.
If approved, Washington would join California and British Columbia in pricing carbon on the West Coast.
In his State of the State address, the governor implored legislators to cast aside their reservations and adopt a plan to tackle climate change in this year’s short, 60-day legislative session.
“It is time to step up,” Inslee told lawmakers at the Capitol. The impacts of climate change, he added, “will be carried by our children, our economy, our security and our quality of life.”
But as in recent years, Inslee’s plan faces steep hurdles in Olympia.
Republicans remain adamantly opposed to a carbon tax, and Democrats have been divided over what such a plan should look like.
Inslee’s proposal would levy a $20-a-ton price on carbon emissions, said Reed Schuler, an Inslee policy adviser. That price would rise over time.
The billions of dollars raised would support clean-energy projects, work to improve floodwater management and reduce risks of wildfires, and assistance to offset the tax’s impact on low-income communities.
The state would start collecting the revenue in the 2020 budget year, with $726 million generated that year. The tax would raise a total of $3.3 billion over four years.
The governor first mentioned a carbon tax in the proposed supplemental budget he rolled out last month. In that plan, he said $950 million would go toward replenishing budget reserves he proposed spending on K-12 education, to satisfy the Washington Supreme Court order called the McCleary decision.
With the tax, residential natural-gas prices could increase about 10 percent in 2020, and gasoline prices could rise between 6 and 9 percent, said Lauren McCloy, a policy adviser for Inslee.
Electricity costs could increase 4 to 5 percent, although it would likely be less for Seattle consumers who are served largely by hydropower.
If approved, Washington would join California and British Columbia in pricing carbon on the West Coast.
California has adapted a program that sets an ever-lowering cap on emissions, then runs quarterly auctions where the price polluters pay for carbon allowances is set.
This cap-and-trade approach was initially favored by Inslee in a 2014 proposal that he tried unsuccessfully to get through Legislature.
Since then, he has shifted his strategy to favor a tax, which is the approach taken by British Columbia back in 2008. That tax has now reached $30 Canadian dollars per ton of carbon emissions.
GOP opposition
A carbon tax has not found support with GOP lawmakers.
Republican Senate Minority Deputy Leader Sharon Brown, of Kennewick, described Inslee’s proposal as “economy-crippling new energy taxes …”
“The energy tax that the governor proposes would drive up the cost of motor fuel and electricity, imposing a huge burden on struggling families,” Brown said.
Democrats have been more supportive of the idea of a carbon tax, but disagreement remains over how to implement such a plan and where the money would go.
“It’s a diversity of opinions in our caucus,” said House Majority Leader Rep. Pat Sullivan, D-Covington.
Asked whether lawmakers could find agreement, Sullivan said, “It’s a challenge, there’s no question about it … but, it is possible.”
He said tax revenues “should go to mitigate effects” on communities and industries that are affected.
Sen. Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island, recently said she is open to the idea of a carbon tax. But Rolfes said she would be concerned about any proposal that “translated into a significant gas tax,” since lawmakers hiked the gas tax in 2015.
Meanwhile, Senate Democratic Majority Leader Sharon Nelson, of Maury Island, has called any carbon legislation “a big lift” this year.
Sen. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle, and sponsor of Inslee’s proposal in the Senate, will have to find a way to bring lawmakers on board.
“I’m in Sen. Warren Magnuson mode,” said Carlyle, referring to the late U.S. senator from Seattle known for his environmental accomplishments. “This is about getting the votes.”
Inslee’s plan “is a solid, functioning first draft,” Carlyle said, “and we’re going to take it from here and kick it into high gear.”
The tax is intended to create a price signal that steers consumers — including businesses — away from fossil fuels. It would rise by 3.5 percent each year above the rate of the inflation.
The tax would be levied on businesses that use fossil fuels, including petroleum distributors and others.
Aircraft and agricultural fuels are among the products shielded from the tax. Some trade-exposed, energy-intensive industries also would be exempted.
Utilities also would have an option to invest in projects to reduce carbon emissions that could qualify for tax credits. That has helped the bill gain support from Puget Sound Energy, the state’s largest private utility.
In a statement, Puget Sound Energy President and CEO Kimberly Harris called Inslee’s proposal “an important step forward …”
“We look forward to working with the governor, legislators and other interests to make the 2018 session the turning point for Washington state’s energy future,” Harris said.
But the oil industry is wary.
A spokeswoman for the Western States Petroleum Association — which represents Phillips 66, Shell, Andeavor and U.S. Oil — said the organization is concerned about the tax burden that would be passed along to consumers.
Inslee priority
While combating climate change has been Inslee’s signature priority, the Legislature and the courts have stifled his ambitions.
In the Legislature’s 2015 session, the governor’s plan to create a carbon cap-and-trade system stalled. Likewise, lawmakers in 2017 took a pass on his proposal for a carbon tax.
A judge last month invalidated parts of the clean-air rule that Inslee created through executive action, which was intended to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.
Nonetheless, with talk of new ballot measure on carbon that could go to voters, lawmakers are talking about carbon pollution more than in recent years.
More than a dozen Democratic House members have signed on to another proposal, HB 2338, that would reduce the carbon content of transportation fuel.
Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, has sponsored another version of a carbon tax, SB 6096.
Joseph O'Sullivan: 360-236-8268 or josullivan@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @OlympiaJo
Fonte: Seattle Times
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEIA TAMBÉM:
Sobre o sistema "Cap and Trade"
"Cap and Trade": sistema de redução das emissões de Carbono da Califórnia ameaçado por incertezas
Legislação de "Cap and Trade" da Califórnia está alavancando projetos florestais
"Cap and Trade": sistema de redução das emissões de Carbono da Califórnia ameaçado por incertezas
Califórnia é o primeiro estado nos EUA a aprovar um sistema de mercado de carbono
Palestra sobre sistema europeu de Cap and Trade
Vídeo com crítica ao sistema "Cap and Trade".
EPA emissions limits? Brazil sees potential gains. Legislação de "Cap and Trade" da Califórnia está alavancando projetos florestais
"Cap and Trade": sistema de redução das emissões de Carbono da Califórnia ameaçado por incertezas
Califórnia é o primeiro estado nos EUA a aprovar um sistema de mercado de carbono
Palestra sobre sistema europeu de Cap and Trade
Vídeo com crítica ao sistema "Cap and Trade".
Política climática em Niterói
Outras postagens
Europa se esforça para se manter na vanguarda ambiental, mesmo com a crise econômica Quanto custa a poluição do ar?
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Contribua. Deixe aqui a sua crítica, comentário ou complementação ao conteúdo da mensagem postada no Blog do Axel Grael. Obrigado.