US President Barack Obama's announcement yesterday that he plans to increase the fuel efficiency standard for automobiles and regulate their tailpipe emissions is quite significant.

After eight years of federal government inaction, Obama was able to get state goverenments, the auto industry, and environmentalists to agree on a plan that will limit greenhouse gas emissions, (perhaps) enhance the competitiveness of the beleaguered US auto industry, and reduce petrol consumption.

One of the things I found remarkable was the swiftness with which the auto makers abandoned their long-standing opposition to increasing the fuel efficiency standard.  Ever since California requested from the Bush administration a waiver to establish their own emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, the auto industry balked at how difficult it would be to follow a "patchwork" of different state standards.  They never had a reasonable response to the retort that they should simply adopt the more stringent, California standards on a nationwide basis.  

Yesterday, however, the major auto executives stood behind Obama and praised the new regulations.  Whether this is a result of the industry coming to terms with the prospects of a dismal future or an example of Obama's power of persuasion is uncertain.  Regardless, this is a significant development.

I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up in the US press, but the Guardian is reporting that a bipartisan group of US functionaries held several meetings in the second half of 2008 with China's top climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, to find common ground between the two countries.

The meetings apparently started in July and continued following the election of Barack Obama to the US Presidency. Many of the Democratic representatives were high level Congressional staffers or former Clinton officials who now have positions in the Obama administration. These include current White House science adviser John Holdren, Joe Biden's adviser Jim Green, and long-time Democratic State Department hand, Frank Loy.

According to the Guardian, the group proposed that the two countries agree  to reduce emissions by 20% by 2010, cooperate on technological development of carbon capture and storage, and to commit to a global agreement in Copenhagen.  Apparently these terms were looked upon favorably by Xie.

While there has been no publicized agreement between the two countries, Hilary Clinton did announce a "clean energy partnership" with China during her visit there earlier this year.

This dialogue can only represent a positive move for an international climate agreement to be hatched in Copenhagen later this year.

Important negotiating documents for the successor to the Kyoto Protocol were released by the United Nations yesterday in advance of negotiating sessions scheduled for early June in Bonn. The documents are compilations of suggestions by various countries seeking to shape the international treaty expected to emerge out of the major negotiations in Copenhagen later this year.

It is interesting to see how these documents evolve during the months leading up to Copenhagen as they give the first concrete sense of many countries' negotiating positions.

Two documents were released yesterday. One focuses on national commitments [.pdf] to greenhouse gas emissions reductions beginning in 2013. The second proposes systematic ways of incorporating land use into the Kyoto successor.

I haven't had a chance to read through the land use document, but the national commitment document is quite interesting. One of the sticking points at Kyoto was coming to an agreement as to which countries would have to reduce their emissions and by how much. With the Kyoto commitment period ending in 2012, this document essentially picks up where the discussions in Kyoto left off, with an eye for developing second commitment period targets.

There are several options being floated, with only one offering explicit country-by-country reduction numbers for the second commitment period. Most of the proposals simply put forward a time line for the next commitment period and an indication of which countries should be covered. One of the main issues that recalcitrant nations like the US had with Kyoto was the exclusion of developing countries, like China and India, from having binding targets. Most of the proposals keep the distinction between the "developed" (termed "Annex I" under the Kyoto Protocol) and "less developed" countries.

Several, however, break down that distinction, suggesting that some countries may push for commitments from all signatories. This does not mean that all countries will have mandatory emissions reductions as Kyoto, for instance, set a precedence whereby some Annex I countries had obligations that exceeded their 1990 emissions.

The document also had some negotiating points on general, global emissions reduction targets. These included proposals to requiring Annex I parties to reduce emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2018 or 45% by 2020.

Finally, there was some mention of taking into account per-capita emissions levels. It will be interesting to see where this goes, given that the developing world (headed by China, Brazil, India, and others) argue that they should not be required to have any binding emissions reductions given the fact that per capita emissions are so small. It is the developed world that has the large per capita carbon footprint and should, hence, be most responsible for cutting emissions.

From the standpoint of the US, it is noteworthy that Obama's target of reducing US emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 is much weaker than most of the proposals contained in these negotiating texts.

Reuters reports that the UN will be releasing another negotiating document in a number of days that looks to set forth long term (i.e. 2050) reduction commitments.