As the United States prepares to reckon with its own carbon footprint, Mexican President Felipe Calderon is urging his own nation- and others like it- to follow suit. In an appearance before the beginning of the G20 Summit in London, Calderon called upon developing countries to take the challenge of emissions control seriously. Calderon hinted that the best motivator toward climate change adaptation would be a nation’s finances, and was not shy in appealing to that with his call for a “global green fund” to help poorer nations afford to institute emissions caps and other climate change adaptations. Calderon said:

There are two things that threaten the very existence of humanity: the gap between man and nature and the gap between north and south, between rich and poor…We need to realize that the instruments that Kyoto created were unhelpful for our purposes. The right instruments are the right economic incentives for the countries, because money is the best incentive for anyone.

Though the upcoming Copenhagen summit by the UN will likely focus much of its regulatory power upon developed nations which produce the most carbon emissions, Calderon’s urging of a financial impetus for developing nations to follow suit has been also suggested by representatives from other South American nations, particularly Brazil. In that country, the former environment minister Marina Silva was recently awarded the annual Sophie prize, a Norwegian environmental award that hailed her tenure as a period of historic lows in deforestation in the Amazon.

Image: Mexican President Felipe Calderon

An announcement by the United States Environmental Protection Agency has led to speculation that the United States could take a stance against climate change by declaring carbon dioxide a taxable or highly regulated toxic substance.

As has been widely reported, the EPA announced on Monday that it considered carbon dioxide emissions now hazardous to human life, therefore implying that carbon emissions- which come from nearly every source of the American industry- would be regulated under the Clean Air Act, which sets strict guidelines for the amount of a substance permitted to be released into the atmosphere. Immediately, the fighting began, with proponents hailing it as historic news, while opponents damned it as “devastating to the economy.” Even environmentalists admit that the Clean Air Act is a “blunt tool” that would offer little to no gray area for emissions regulations, and most predict that the Obama administration will use some form of cap and trade policy, where a limit on carbon emissions is set and that industry producers would have to purchase permits to exceed the limit, the price of which would likely be returned to the consumer. Those hoping for a strong stance against carbon emissions may find their prayers answered with the decision. Here, Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch, has his say:

We think that the Obama administration, which has said it would like Congress to act on this issue, can remind the lawmakers that if they sit on their hands, the EPA will move forward. We also hope that making it clear that EPA has authority to deal with this issue under existing law will weaken the bargaining position of the corporate lobbyists, many of whom are already trying to undermine the Obama approach.

There are some uncertainties still to be dealt with by the EPA concerning other aspects of their Clean Air policies, however. In particular, after an underwhelming auction of sulfur dioxide, which netted the organization its lowest profits since it began auctioning in 1993, many traders said much of the uncertainty stemmed from the shaky legal ground on which some of the legislation that regulates the substance sits. They were particularly concerned with the fate of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which has been bounced around the court system and has now ended up back in the EPA’s lap to decide whether to regulate more harshly substances like sulfur dioxide.

In an unrelated victory for environmentalists, the EPA announced a temporary moratorium on all mountaintop coal mining projects until their environmental impact could be assessed.

Image: Carbon emissions

In the final chapter of a long-running saga, the controversial EPA program PerformanceTrack was shuttered by the agency this week.

An investigative series by the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2008 revealed that the program, begun in 2000 under the Bush administration to allow corporations with good environmental records to join a self-policing industry group, was not fulfilling its promises. Specifically, corporations were being admitted to the group that did not meet the set standards of environmental protection, and that once in the group, their activities were rarely if ever tracked by the agency.

Even the EPA itself recognized the flaws in the program, releasing a 2007 Inspector General report that criticized PerformanceTrack for failing to put into place clear guidelines and goals for the program. In a public address, the EPA explained its current stance on the program:

In order to develop a stronger system to protect human health and the environment, EPA has decided to halt the current National Environmental Performance Track Program so that we may evaluate and refine the program’s concepts. It has been and continues to be EPA’s policy to recognize and encourage environmental stewardship and EPA will continue to work with stakeholders to set new objectives for conservation and sustainability.

Image: PerformanceTrack Logo

Since it first left the lips of American congressmen, ’stimulus bill’ has become one of those catchphrases that is inevitably thrown around cable channels without any real context or explanation. Thus, thanks to the astute staff at Oh My Gov, the breakdown of what the bill actually contains from an environmental standpoint is a refreshing change of pace. Building off a report by the Pennsylvania chapter of the Sierra Club that detailed the package blow-by-blow, Oh My Gov reports that a sizeable sum has been set aside for environmental projects:

…$70 billion will be invested in electricity grid modernization, new mass transit and high-speed rail initiatives, energy efficiency projects aimed at renewable energies, and environmental cleanup.

Highlights are many, but among them include $11 billion for a smart electrical grid, $6 billion for cleanup of radioactive and hazardous wastes, and $6 billion for energy research.

A further boost to energy conservation and efficiency will also come through the $80 billion investment in infrastructure development, which will modernize highways and attempt to alleviate gridlock with $8 billion for high-speed passenger commuter rail.

If you’re interested in digging further into the actual language of the bill, take a look at the document itself.

Image: Composition of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009