Three key services provided by coral reefs and mangroves in Belize are worth an estimated US$395 million to US$559 million per year, according to a report released today by the World Resources Institute and the World Wildlife Fund. Annual Economic Contribution of Coral Reefs and Mangroves in Belize“Putting a dollar value on the goods and services provided by reefs and mangroves helps to translate them into a language that everyone speaks,” said Lauretta Burke, a senior associate at WRI. “Hopefully, these findings will contribute to well-informed decisions regarding the management of these critical resources.” The report, Coastal Capital: Belize, estimates the annual economic value of coral reef- and mangrove-associated tourism in Belize at between US$150 million and US$196 million, accounting for between 12 and 15 percent of the Caribbean nation’s GDP. Benefits from reef- and mangrove-dependent fisheries contribute a further US$14 million to US$16 million to the economy.   Reefs and mangroves also protect coastal properties from erosion and wave-induced damage. WRI estimates that Belize’s coral reefs provide an estimated US$120 million to US$180 million in avoided damages per year. Mangroves protect the coastline from both waves and storm surge, providing an additional US$111 million to US$167 million in protection annually.  Despite growing recognition of the economic importance of coastal resources, reefs and mangroves face growing threats from unchecked coastal development, over-fishing, and pressures from tourism. Climate-related changes such as warming seas and fiercer storms will compound these impacts in the future. “The goods and services offered by coral reefs and mangroves are frequently overlooked or underappreciated in coastal investment and policy decisions,” said Emily Cooper, a research associate at WRI and lead author of the study. “The amount currently invested in protecting Belize’s coral reefs and mangroves is very small when compared to the contribution of these resources to the national economy.” Belize’s Marine Protected Area (MPA) system is widely hailed as an example of forward-thinking in marine conservation. Consisting of 18 protected areas managed primarily by the country’s fisheries and forestry departments in collaboration with local NGOs, the MPAs are an important draw for divers, snorkelers and sport fishermen, and contain no-fishing areas that help to maintain stocks of key commercial species. The system, however, is under-funded, and staff, fuel, and equipment limitations make it difficult to curb illegal fishing and monitor visitation in most of the reserves. “Belize’s reefs and mangroves offer crucial socio-economic benefits but are already threatened by overuse, degradation and fragmentation. Climate change will undoubtedly compound these through increased frequency of impacts from mass bleaching and storm occurrences, as well as coastal erosion and sedimentation,” said Nadia Bood, Mesoamerican reef scientist and climate change officer for WWF Central America. “This makes urgent the need to act now to alleviate human threats and increase the resilience potential of these very important ecosystems.” WRI’s Coastal Capital project receives key financial support from the Oak Foundation, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, SwedBio, the Campbell Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation. The full report can be accessed on WRI’s website at http://www.wri.org/publication/coastal-capital-belize . 

Imported Coal Power Could Undermine Northeast Global Warming Cap-and-Trade System

The California Air Resources Board is expected to vote today on two new rules that would dramatically reduce toxic emissions from big-rig trucks.

The United States signed on to the most universally supported treaty on climate change, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was designed to protect the world from the dangerous effects of climate change. Although the U.S. did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the next round of negotiations on a follow-up treaty are currently underway and the U.S. must consider how to re-engage in the international climate change process. Download This Fact Sheet (PDF, 212 Kb, 3 pages) (includes footnotes and references) Publications, Tools & Data Why is an international climate agreement important? The impacts of climate change do not respect borders—all countries will experience the impacts. It is therefore in the interest of all nations to control greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide, HFC refrigerants, and methane. It is also important for the U.S. and other wealthy countries to help emerging countries de-link rapid economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions. Why is U.S. leadership critical? No single country can solve the climate change problem alone. As the largest per capita greenhouse gas emitter, U.S. participation and leadership is needed to achieve meaningful global action. The type of actions taken by other countries will be influenced by the level and type of commitments taken by the United States. As the world’s technological powerhouse, the U.S. can offer innovative energy and technology solutions to help address the climate change problem. A clean energy technology revolution led by the U.S. will create opportunities for U.S. businesses in times of economic challenges, and a global climate change agreement would create new markets for U.S. products and energy solutions around the world. Driven by increased energy consumption, China, India and Brazil are among the top 10 emitters of greenhouse gas emissions (see graph). By 2050, developing countries will account for around eight billion of the world’s projected nine billion people. An effective global climate change agreement will contribute to more sustainable development for billions of people. Why should the U.S. act when other major polluters are not? There is a common misconception that emerging countries, including China—whose total greenhouse gas emissions are now beginning to mirror those of the U.S.—and India, are not concerned about climate change and are unwilling to curb their domestic emissions. In fact: Despite the fact that it is a rapidly growing country with substantial poverty, China reduced energy use per unit of GDP by 20% from 2006-2011 and almost reached its goal of 10% renewable energy by 2011. In 2007, China shut down around 1000 cement plants and many other polluting factories. India and Brazil published national climate plans in 2008, and Brazil has also enacted an oil tax. Mexico initiated a program on climate change in 2008 and South Korea will set a greenhouse gas reduction goal in 2009. Where are we in the international negotiation process? In 2012, the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol will be concluded. In the next two years a follow-on treaty will be negotiated. This process was started in earnest in Bali in 2007, with the agreement of the Bali Action Plan, and will conclude in Copenhagen in December 2009. The Bali Action Plan makes provisions for developing countries to take nationally-appropriate mitigation actions that will help advance their national development goals while addressing climate change. The Plan also adds that developed countries will provide technology, finance, and capacity to support their mitigation actions. Determining how these actions and support will be measured, reported and verified is a key part of the current negotiations. What can we do to encourage the rest of the world to reduce their GHG emissions? Developing countries are seeking partnerships and assistance for climate change adaptation, mitigation, technology and financing. The UNFCCC already coordinates international action in these four key areas, making U.S. participation through this channel an easy option: Mitigation (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions): The Bali Action Plan agreed to by the U.S. created the negotiating space for developing and developed countries to take nationally-appropriate mitigation actions to reduce greenhouse gases. It provides a framework for technology transfer, capacity building and financial assistance to support developing country actions to mitigate fossil fuel emissions. The U.S. can take a lead in turning these agreements into action. Technology: Developing countries such as China and India seek climate-friendly technology to meet their growing needs for energy. The UNFCCC technology funds are available to help countries move toward low carbon economies through developing and deploying renewable, non-fossil fuel technologies such as wind and concentrated solar power. The U.S can play a major role in helping to deploy such technology through innovative public-private sector partnerships. This provides an opportunity for the U.S. to be the leader in low carbon use around the world. Financing: Developing countries need financial support to implement programs to deploy technology and investment in low carbon infrastructure, technology development and adaptation. Aid channels already exist, as described above. However, only a small fraction of what is needed has been pledged. Adaptation: Adaptation funds managed by the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank channel aid to developing countries to pay for specific activities to reduce their vulnerability to climate change (for example, coastal management planning). These are grossly under-funded and need U.S. leadership. If the U.S. would release the $1.6 billion promised to the World Bank for clean technology development and adaptation programs, it would support developing countries in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. These funds could also help stimulate private sector investment and can be leveraged by businesses around the world. By taking advantage of technology development and partnership opportunities, the U.S. can recapture international leadership on clean technology development and production while helping emerging economies reduce their emissions. Publications, Tools & Data Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT). CAIT is an information and analysis tool on global climate change developed by WRI. Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standards (Corporate Standard) A Comparison of Legislative Climate Change Targets in the 110th Congress Growing in the Greenhouse: Protecting the Climate by Putting Development First Sustainable Development Policies and Measures Database Slicing the Pie: Sector-based Approaches to International Climate Agreements Weathering the Storm: Options for Framing Adaptation and Development Correcting the World’s Greatest Market Failure: Climate Change and the Multilateral Development Banks Leveling the Carbon Playing Field: International Competition and U.S. Climate Policy Design

Missouri’s new clean energy statute would save consumers money, as well as reducing harmful carbon emissions.

The argument that developing countries are taking no action to address climate change is wrong. With the target date for the Kyoto Protocol’s successor agreement still a year away, and a lame duck U.S. delegation in attendance, nobody expected a watershed moment at the recently concluded climate change conference (COP-14) in Poznan, Poland. While delegates made modest progress on some key issues, the real stuff happened outside the negotiations, as the leaders of some of the highest-emitting and fastest-growing economies pledged to reduce their countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. Brazil announced it would reduce its deforestation rate over 50 percent from recent levels by 2017, avoiding an estimated 4.8 billion tons of CO2 emissions. Mexico pledged to halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, employing a “cap-and-trade” policy like the one recently considered by the U.S. Congress. South Africa presented a detailed plan to peak their country’s emissions by 2020. And while China—now the world’s largest source of annual greenhouse gas emissions—made no new announcements in Poznan, it is on track to reduce its energy intensity 20 percent by 2010. In 2007 alone, China closed over 1,000 inefficient factories. These developments are significant for two reasons. First, these four countries collectively account for nearly a quarter of global emissions. More importantly, China, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico are all developing countries—“non-Annex I countries” in the parlance of the Kyoto Protocol. Critics perennially complain that international efforts to address global warming won’t work unless developing countries—which account for just over half of all global greenhouse gases—take action to reduce their emissions. For their part, developing countries have resisted emissions targets, arguing, legitimately I think, that developed countries have contributed the lion’s share of emissions so far, and should lead in making reductions. In any case, the argument that developing countries are taking no action is wrong. This month’s pronouncements signal a growing urgency on the part of emerging economies to shift their own development to a more sustainable path. While the new targets are politically significant, their impact on emissions and domestic policy remains to be seen. Brazil’s plan, for example, has come under fire by local environmental groups, who charge that it lacks ambition (the first phase of its target was largely achieved before the plan was even announced) and means little without an implementation plan. There is no doubt that China’s plans are being implemented, but as long as China’s economic growth outpaces its intensity targets, they will not result in absolute emissions reductions. Per-capita Chinese energy consumption is still well below that in the United States, so reducing emissions intensity is a reasonable near-term goal. Ultimately though, we will need absolute reductions in China as basic energy demand is satisfied and new technology options materialize. Developing countries have come a long way since the US Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because it did not require them to act. President-elect Obama has stated that his administration will seek deep emissions cuts in the U.S., but Congress will no doubt have an eye on China as it considers what policies to enact. A clear understanding of developing country climate and energy policies will be key to fostering confidence that emissions reductions at home will not be negated by unconstrained growth abroad. For their part, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa have made at least some of their efforts contingent on outside support, and the Chinese used their program to call on developed countries for greater action. Mexican environment minister Juan Rafael Elvira said that his country’s target was meant to spur other countries to reduce their own emissions—and to help Mexico attract investment to make its reductions. South Africa has divided its plan into low- and no-cost efforts it can tackle alone and additional efforts it could undertake with international assistance. As the Obama administration takes up the negotiating reins, it will be navigating a very different terrain than the one in which the Kyoto Protocol was agreed in 1997. Developing countries have presented a range of initiatives that they are prepared to take forward either unilaterally or with international support. The U.S. must now act quickly to pass strong legislation to spur an economic recovery while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Internationally, the U.S. must seek a fair and effective agreement that supports the initiatives already underway in developing countries. A significant part of the global community is ready to do its part. So must the United States.