Investor Summit on Climate Risk
The 2008 Investor Summit on Climate Risk will bring together more than 450 institutional investors, Wall Street leaders and CEOs from around the world to consider the scale and urgency of climate change risks, as well as the economic opportunities of a global transition to a clean energy future.
Purpose
The purpose of the Summit is to provide a high-level forum for state treasurers, leading institutional investors, and financial services firms from around the world to consider the scale and urgency of climate change risks, as well as the economic opportunities of a global transition to a clean energy future.
Objectives
Based on a vision of hope and opportunity, the Summit will focus on how investors can advance solutions to climate change, with a particular emphasis on the benefits of energy efficiency. The Summit aims to help investors:- Examine recent scientific findings on climate risk and technological solutions
- Assess potential capital flows into energy efficiency and clean technologies
- Learn how treasurers, institutional investors and financial services firms worldwide are factoring climate risk into their policies and strategies
- Consider prudent steps investors can take to address climate risk and opportunities
Background
The 2008 Summit builds on the groundbreaking success of the first two UN Investor Summits on November 21, 2003, and May 10, 2005. Hundreds of institutional investors and asset managers from around the world, representing trillions of dollars in assets, attended the previous Summits. The information they shared raised profound concerns about investor exposure to climate risk, the future security of investment assets, and the fiduciary duty to take prudent steps to address climate risk on behalf of shareholders and beneficiaries. Information on previous Summits can be found at the Investor Network on Climate Risk website.
Climate Risk – and Opportunity
Climate change poses regulatory, legal, physical and competitive risks for companies. In the two years since the 2005 Summit there has been a growing recognition that climate change presents serious risks, not only for businesses and investments, but also for the global economy. Left unattended, risks from climate change will worsen over time, harming company assets and global investment portfolios. Leading economists, investors, and business leaders have stated recently that the costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are both affordable and significantly lower than the costs of inaction. Where there are risks, there are also opportunities, and the business opportunities posed by addressing climate change are significant. With the proper government policies and market conditions, low-carbon technologies that are available today could be more broadly deployed, and significant reductions in emissions could be achieved over the next few decades—all while creating vast new economic opportunities and new jobs.
Agenda
7:30 am – Registration and Coffee (enter at UN Visitors Entrance, 1st Avenue @ 46th Street)
9:00 am – Welcoming Remarks (Trusteeship Council Chamber, 2nd Floor)- Amir A. Dossal, Executive Director, United Nations Fund for International Partnerships
- Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
- Timothy E. Wirth, President, United Nations Foundation
- John P. Holdren, Professor, Harvard University & Director, Woods Hole Research Center – presentation and discussion
- Diana Farrell, Director, McKinsey Global Institute – presentation 10:20 am – Discussion
- Mindy S. Lubber, President, Ceres & Director, Investor Network on Climate Risk (moderator)
- Timothy E. Wirth, President, United Nations Foundation (moderator)
- Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director, International Energy Agency
- Peter A. Darbee, Chairman, CEO, & President, PG&E Corporation
- Vinod Khosla, Founding CEO, Sun Microsystems & Founder, Khosla Ventures
- John Chiang, Controller, State of California (moderator)
- Donald MacDonald, Trustee Director, BT Pension Scheme
- Denise L. Nappier, Treasurer, State of Connecticut
- Russell Read, Chief Investment Officer, California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS)
- Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer, State of Florida
1:00 pm – Luncheon (Delegates Dining Room, 4th Floor; closed to press)
- Luncheon Welcome: Richard H. Murray, Managing Director & Chief Claims Strategist, Swiss Re
- UN Welcome: Dr. Srgjan Kerim, President, 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly
- Introduction: Jeff Skoll, Founder & Chairman, Skoll Foundation & Participant Productions
- Featured Speaker: Al Gore, 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner; Former Vice President of the United States; Chairman, Generation Investment Management
International Aspects of a Carbon Cap and Trade Program
- Jennifer Haverkamp, Senior Counsel, Environmental Defense, Washington, DC
- Abraham Breehey, Assistant Director of Government Affairs, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers
- Kjell Olav Kristiansen, Director, Advisory Services, Point Carbon North America
- Ruksana Mirza, Vice President, Government and Environmental Affairs, Holcim, Inc.
America's Role in the World: Promoting Environmental and Energy Sustainability
CSIS is pleased to host Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, for a discussion on the future of U.S. foreign assistance, energy and environmental sustainability. Frank A. Verrastro, Director and Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program, will moderate.
The Smart Power Speaker Series features policymakers, practitioners and opinion leaders from around the world and across the political spectrum to engage in a discussion on U.S. Smart Power. The series is a spin-off of the CSIS Commission on Smart Power.
The Commission on Smart Power, chaired by Harvard’s Joseph Nye and former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, issued a report on November 6, 2007 on how to revitalize America’s image and influence in the world. To read the report or obtain further information, go to www.csissmartpower.org.
Coffee, tea, and soda will be served.
1800 K Street, NW
CSIS B1 – Conference Center
Washington DC, 20006
Please RSVP by emailing Sierra Stanczyk at [email protected] or calling 202-887-0200 ext. 3946
Boucher Releases White Paper on Emissions from Developing Countries
In the middle of September 2007, Rick Boucher (D-W.Va.), chair of the the the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee of John Dingell’s Energy and Commerce Committee, announced he would be releasing a series of white papers “over the next six weeks” on issues related to the development of climate change legislation.
October saw the first such paper, Scope of a Cap-and-Trade Program.
16 weeks later, he has released the second, Competitiveness Concerns/Engaging Developing Countries.
Since the U.S. cannot unilaterally bind other countries, our goal will be to craft legislation limiting U.S. carbon emissions that also induces developing countries to limit their emissions growth (1) on a timetable that meets both environmental and trade competitiveness concerns; (2) in a manner that is reasonably certain to withstand challenge before the World Trade Organization (WTO); and (3) on terms that pose acceptable risks to U.S. interests in the event of a negative WTO determination.
The white paper, which draws from a March 27 subcommittee hearing on international issues, discusses the IBEW/American Electric Power proposal of applying a “greenhouse gas intensity tariff” (which was included in Bingaman-Specter and Lieberman-Warner); the “carbon intensive” performance standard proposal; and the Environmental Defense “carrots and sticks” proposal for carbon market design.
The “questions for further discussion” are listed after the jump.
The accompanying memo makes the following request:
- Do any of the three alternatives discussed in this White Paper – border adjustments, performance standards, or carbon market design – offer clear cut advantages as a legislative policy in terms of encouraging developing countries to limit their GHG emissions and simultaneously protecting U.S. industry in global trade markets? Are there other approaches Congress should consider and, if so, what are their advantages and disadvantages?
- Are the various policies mutually exclusive, or can they be combined in some fashion to achieve the best balance between reducing global GHG emissions and protecting U.S. industry and jobs?
- In terms of timing, how closely should legislation link commencement of a U.S. domestic cap-and-trade regime with policies to induce developing countries to limit their GHG emissions?
- Should U.S. legislation distinguish between the “least developed” countries and other “developing” countries?
- Which approach is most likely to satisfy WTO requirements? Which approach is most likely to result in the promp resolution of any WTO challenge, and thereby provide most certainty with respect to both global environmental benefits and the long term impact on U.S. industry and jobs?
- How can climate legislation that includes both domestic and international components be drafted to align with any post-Kyoto Protocol accord the U.S. agrees to under the UNFCCC? How might U.S. adoption of climate change legislation affect the likelihood that such an agreement is concluded and influence the formulation of a U.S. international negotiating position?
Following a review of this paper, we strongly encourage interested parties to share with us their views and suggestions regarding the proper approach to encouraging the control of greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries.
Learning from a Laureate: Science, Security and Sustainability
This Wednesday, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will host Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in his first appearance before Congress. Last year, under Dr. Pachauri’s leadership, the IPCC produced the seminal review of the science of global warming, its current and potential future impacts and the positive strategies available to help address this looming threat.
Dr. Pachauri will share his views on the urgency of addressing global warming and the issues Congress and other political leaders must consider when crafting climate legislation this year.
Witness- Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
SOTU Excerpts on Energy Security and Climate Change
To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology. Our security, our prosperity, and our environment all require reducing our dependence on oil.
Let us create a new international clean technology fund, which will help developing nations like India and China make greater use of clean energy sources. And let us complete an international agreement that has the potential to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of greenhouse gases. This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride.
Translate as you will.
Are 1990 Levels by 2020 a Sufficient Cut?
The Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill (S. 2191), which Sen. Boxer said may come to the floor before June, sets a cap of 15% below 2005 emissions levels by 2020 for covered sectors, reducing allowed emissions to the amount last seen in 1990.
Is that near-term target sufficient, in terms of the science?
As Holmes Hummel points out, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) paints a much different picture.
At Bali, all of the Annex I signatories to the Kyoto Protocol (every industrialized country other than the US and Turkey) agreed to this roadmap, which states in convoluted language that the Annex I countries “noted” that the AR4 indicates that global emissions “need to peak in the next 10-15 years” and be reduced “well below half of levels in 2000” by 2050 “in order to stabilize their concentrations in the atmosphere at the lowest levels assessed by the IPCC to date in its scenarios.” The countries also “recognized” that the AR4 indicates that to achieve those levels “would require Annex I Parties as a group to reduce emissions in a range of 25–40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.”
25-40% below 1990 levels is dramatically below the Lieberman-Warner target. From AR4, these “lowest levels” of concentrations are 350-400ppm CO2.
What’s the value of achieving concentrations “at the lowest levels”? The report says that using the “best estimate” for climate sensitivity (the temperature response to greenhouse gas concentrations), reaching a stable concentration of 350-400ppm CO2 leads to 2.0-2.4 degrees C warming above pre-industrial levels. But Hummel notes that the “best estimate” is just one for which half the estimates are higher and half are lower.
Thus:
To have a 50% chance of making the 2°C stabilization target, global emissions need to peak by 2015 and Annex I countries need to be 25-40% below 1990 by 2020.As AAAS president John Holdren argued in his speech Meeting the Climate Challenge (at 38:29; see also the slide presentation):
The chance of a tipping point into truly catastrophic change grows rapidly for increases in the global average surface temperature more than about 2°C above the pre-industrial level, and again we’re already committed basically to one and a half. For a better than even chance of not exceeding 2°C above the pre-industrial level, CO2 emissions must peak globally no later than 2025 and they need to be falling steadily after that. That is a great task.From the UN Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development, an international panel of 18 top scientists (including John Holdren):
In our judgment and that of a growing number of other analysts and groups, however, increases beyond 2°C to 2.5°C above the 1750 level will entail sharply rising risks of crossing a climate “tipping point” that could lead to intolerable impacts on human well-being, in spite of all feasible attempts at adaptation.
International Climate Change Negotiation: Bali and the Path Toward a Post-2012 Climate Treaty
Sen. Menendez presiding.
Witnesses:
Panel 1- James L. Connaughton, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President
- Jim Lyons, Vice President for Policy and Communication, Oxfam America
- Elliot Diringer, Director of International Strategies, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
- Glen Prickett, Senior Vice President, Business and U.S. Government Relations, Conservation International
- John J. Castellani, President, Business Roundtable
Administration Perspectives on United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali
The House begins a new round of global warming hearings this year.
Witness- James Connaughton, chairman, White House Council on Environmental Quality
CLIMATE: Key Republican deals blow to House Dems’ emissions plans (01/17/2008)Darren Samuelsohn, Greenwire senior reporter
The top Republican on a key House subcommittee signaled today he won’t support a global warming bill that puts mandatory limits on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
“While I feel strongly that addressing climate change is certainly important, I believe we must address this through a global, voluntary framework that focuses on innovations in technology rather than a pure government mandate,” said Michigan’s Fred Upton, the new ranking member of the House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee.
Upton replaced former House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois this year as the senior Republican on the panel that is tasked with writing climate legislation. During last year’s global warming debate, Hastert’s efforts and comments raised some Democrats’ hopes that he would support a bipartisan agreement on curbing U.S. emissions.
But Hastert resigned from Congress late last year, leaving an opening for Upton, an 11-term lawmaker from Michigan’s southwestern corner.
In his opening statement at the subcommittee’s first hearing this year, Upton poured cold water on the prospect that Democrats will get help from the top of the Republican roster.
“At the end of the day, we’ll need to demonstrate that the price paid in both jobs and dollars equates to some tangible environmental benefits to the American people,” Upton said. “In my view, spending trillions of dollars and losing a countless number of jobs, to maybe alter temperatures by a tenth of a degree, while China and India continue to spew emissions is not the option that we’re looking for.”
Democratic leaders of the House subcommittee and full committee did not outline a specific schedule for crafting a climate bill. But they did promise they would make an effort early this year to write and pass legislation establishing a cap-and-trade program that limits U.S. emissions.
In his own opening statement, House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) affirmed his goal of getting GOP backing as he led the writing of a climate bill.
“This will require bipartisan cooperation, and I hope that my friends on the other side will come to the task with an open mind,” Dingell said.
While committee leaders are seeking bipartisanship agreement on the controversial bill, it wouldn’t necessarily be required to pass the measure out of the full Energy and Commerce panel where Democrats have a five-seat majority.
In an interview, Dingell said he didn’t want to comment on Upton’s remarks at the start of the hearing.
Upton wasn’t the only Republicans on the House panel who raised concerns about a cap-and-trade bill. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the full committee’s ranking member, questioned the underlying science linking humans’ emissions to climate change. CEQ chief testifies
Also during the hearing, Dingell nudged President Bush’s top environmental adviser, Jim Connaughton, who submitted a one-page opening statement for the hearing, plus a month-old slide show and past statements by President Bush.
Passing a climate bill “will require as well the active engagement of the administration, which remains to be seen,” Dingell said. “Judging from the rather thin testimony presented to the subcommittee by our witness today, however, I am less than optimistic.”
Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told lawmakers his brief written remarks shouldn’t leave the impression the administration was making light of the climate issue.
He testified the U.N. agreement reached last month in Bali – which commits developed and developing nations to reaching a deal by 2009 that succeeds the Kyoto Protocol – is now Bush administration climate policy.