“U.S. President Barack Obama will go to Copenhagen for a U.N. climate change meeting on December 9, hoping to add momentum to an international process despite slow progress on a domestic bill to cut carbon emissions”, Reuters reports.

“Obama planned to make a visit at the beginning of the climate negotiations in Denmark, an administration official told Reuters on Wednesday, before picking up the Nobel Peace Prize at a ceremony in neighboring Oslo.”

With him to the climate summit Obama has a pledge to cut emissions in the USA with 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, 30% by 2025, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050. But these numbers are much lower than those proposed by the EU and other industrialised countries such as Norway.

The numbers are also much lower than what the science says is needed to avert catastrophic man-made climate change. According to the IPCC report in 2007 industrialised countries such as the USA needs to cut their emissions by 25-40% by 2020. The global environmental alliance TckTckTck calls for developed countries to cut emissions with 40% by 2020. And according to paleoclimate scientist Dr Andrew Glikson we need to cut carbon emissions with up to 80% by 2020 to avoid catastrophe.

In response to Obama’s announcement the UN climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said that “the world is very much looking to the United States to come forward with an emission reduction target and contribute to financial support to help developing countries.”

But Obama does not plan to join around 65 other world leaders during the final days of the UN climate meeting. Despite this the Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen praised Obama’s decision and said that “the visit underlines the president’s desire to contribute to an ambitious, global agreement in Copenhagen”.

World Wildlife Fund’s Climate Program Director, Keya Chatterjee, said that the environmental organization is “pleased” that President Obama will attend the climate summit. But also noted that:

“If his presence during the latter days of the COP becomes necessary to secure the right commitments, we hope the President will be willing to return to Copenhagen with the rest of the world’s leaders during the final stages of the negotiations.”

Greenpeace USA Global Warming Campaign Director, Damon Moglen, response was a bit harsher. In a statement Moglen said Obama’s short visit “amounts to nothing more than President Obama taking a photo opportunity on his way to pick up the Nobel Peace Prize.” Moglen also said that the international community cannot take Obama’s emission pledge seriously:

“The proposed emissions reductions target – 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 – is less than one seventh of what the European Union leaders have said they are prepared to commit. The proposed reduction refers to 2005 emissions and not the standard 1990 baseline used by scientists and policymakers around the world. Arranging the numbers this way may be more politically palatable, but it misleads the public on information key to its welfare.

Science calls for the United States and the developed world to cut pollution by at least 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050. Using this accepted standard, the announced target that the U.S. plans to bring to the table shoots for only a 4 percent cut in pollution.”

You can learn more about the Copenhagen meeting here.

Obama will abandon complex policies on emissions, clean coal and refocus on achievable goals like applying deodorant daily, learning what to say when you burp.

Don’t worry! It’s just some good’ol satire. Or is it?

“This is not what I voted for,” Bill Maher said on his HBO show Friday night, arguing that Barack Obama has maintained his personal popularity but failed to make real progress on climate change, the economy and health care in USA.

And of course Maher has a good point. China is investing $12.6 million every hour to green their economy and they will impose stricter gas mileage rules than those Obama have proposed. And while China triples their wind power capacity and outpaces the USA you just have to wonder what Obama is doing.

Well it seems Obama’s solution to man-made climate change is to stick with the Bush climate ruling and paint our cars and roofs white. Although painting our roofs white to reflect the sunlight is a cheap way to fight global warming (some claim white roofs is the equivalent to taking the world’s approximately 600 million cars off the road for 18 years) reversing his pro-coal stance somehow seems like a better and more direct solution to the climate crisis.

And just like Maher said, “this isn’t what I voted for”, or why we endorsed you.

Advocates for safety in cosmetics have long been hoping for some good news on the regulation of cosmetics by the U.S. government.  With standards in the U.S. being very loose and under regulated as compared to those of the European Union, it is about time someone step up and take a stand against all of the harmful ingredients being thrown into our cosmetics and personal care products.

Well, it looks as if Barack Obama may do just that.  Cosmetics giants are sweating through their aluminum-based antiperspirants at the news of possible reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which gives the EPA authority to regulate certain chemicals.  As of now, the cosmetics industry is excluded from the act, but changes in the law could require increased testing and reporting of chemicals used in personal care products.

These potential regulatory changes could be costly to cosmetics manufacturers as most conventionally produced cosmetics and skincare products are made with low cost, long shelf life ingredients.  Many of which are harmful to humans and the environment.

As reported by Cosmetics Business late last week, “Another proposal that industry officials are monitoring is a proposed FDA Globalisation Act, a bill that includes a series of new registration requirements for cosmetics makers. The legislation would mandate that manufacturers register all new facilities, products and ingredients with the FDA. The proposal also requires the reporting of adverse effects and the establishment of best practices by the industry”.

The bill would also set registration fees for manufacturers – US$2,000 for American-based companies and US$10,000 for foreign firms.  Currently, registration with the FDA is voluntary for cosmetics manufacturers.

With Obama’s pledge of a more aggressive environmental policy and the appointment of several key players to his environmental team, big changes could be in store for the cosmetics industry.

Photo credit: World Economic Forum

Today Al Gore, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will meet privately to discuss “energy and climate change and how policies in this area can stimulate the economy and create jobs”.

Obama has earlier said that Gore is one of his advisors on climate change and there are rumours floating around that Obama want Gore to be his “energy czar”.

“Obama is reportedly considering creating an energy czar. Gore would be the logical pick. As czar he would be able to help oversee the Transportation department, the Interior department, and the Environmental Protection Agency. He would have a powerful voice over everything from mileage standards to conservation requirements. Even as the Bush administration continues to try to gut regulations such as restrictions on mining and drilling in Utah’s most pristine national parks, it must be awfully tempting for Gore to have the chance to put rhetoric into action.”

But Gore has repeatedly denied any ideas off an official role in the Obama administration.

“This meeting is a continuation of their conversations about climate and energy and how policies to address them can help the economy and jobs,” said Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider. “Former Vice President Gore still believes his calling at this time is to help educate the public about the issues through his roles at the Alliance at Climate Protection and other work.”

Sure, Gore as an “energy czar” would send a strong signal that USA is now serious about energy and the climate. But I do believe Obama can find other strong candidates for the job besides Gore. Because at the moment Gore is still very much needed in creating strong support among the public in USA for tougher environmental actions.

So far over 48,000 “invitations” have been sent. Sign the invitation, click here!

Dear Sen. Obama

I’m writing with a simple request: attend the UN Climate Meetings this December and rejoin the world’s fight against the climate crisis.

The need for an international deal has never been greater. NASA’s top climate scientists have said that to avoid disaster the planet needs a plan both to cut carbon emissions sharply and immediately, and to steer a long term path back below 350 parts per million Carbon Dioxide.

And time is running out. The UN Climate Meetings mark a one year countdown to finish crafting an international climate deal.

I call on you, as President-elect, to commit to going to the UN meeting in Poland in December 2008 to:

*Commit the US to mandatory reductions of Greenhouse gas emissions that meet the urgency science calls for and transition the US to a clean energy economy.

*Commit to helping developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change, and to transfer the technology that will help bring the world to more sustainable economies.

Sending this strong signal to the world will help spur the negotiations so that a genuine global agreement meets the seriousness of the problem. The world is ready for action.

Thank You.

Watch the video:

The Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama has chosen Joe Biden as his running mate and Vice President. But how green is really Joe Biden? Well, it seems he is green enough for the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) to applaud Barack Obama’s choice and to hail Joe Biden in regards to his environmental records.

“With a lifetime LCV environmental score of 83%, Joe Biden recognizes that ending our addiction to oil is vital to our national security,” LCV President Gene Karpinski said. “Senator Biden is a long-time leader on key energy and environmental issues, and the members of LCV enthusiastically support Senator Obama’s choice.”

ScienceSays.net lists “Biden’s awesome environmental record” saying he is just as strong on the environment as Obama and that Biden “isn’t afraid to say it”:

• Supports an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050
• Supports 40 miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency standards by 2017
• Wants the US to use 20% renewable energy by 2020
• Opposes offshore drilling or drilling for oil in the Arctic (ANWR)
• Take Big Oil’s $2 billion dollar tax breaks to pay for offshore wind farms
• Ensured protection of 100% of the coastline in his home state
• Wrote a plan to exchange debt-relief for rainforest protection
• Believes polluters should pay Superfund fees to clean up their toxic waste
• Wants the US to take a stronger stance to end commercial whaling

The League of Conservation Voters also says that Obama’s Energy Plan for America “is the most substantive, comprehensive plan ever put forward by a nominee for President,” and that Biden’s “progressive energy stance” will help to boost Obama’s “visionary plan.”

“They will usher in a new era of environmental leadership,” Gene Karpinski said.

Image credit: Barack Obama @ Flickr. Image licensed under a Creative-Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license.