WASHINGTON | Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:30pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. environmental regulators will likely delay finalizing rules to limit carbon emissions from new power plants, a measure that has been one of President Barack Obama's top strategies to fight climate change, the Washington Post reported on Friday.

The rules were proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nearly a year ago. They are expected to be revised to set a separate standard for coal-fired plants, as opposed to natural-gas-fired plants, the newspaper said.

The administration had been expected to tackle emissions from existing power plants, which are responsible for a much larger volume of U.S. emissions, up to 40 percent, after finalizing the rules on new plants.

An administration official said the report was not accurate because the EPA was still working on the rule. The official did say that sifting through the massive volume of comments was time-consuming.

According to the EPA's regulatory tracker, the so-called greenhouse gas "New Source Performance Standard" for new power plants was projected to be finalized by the end of this month.

But EPA Administrator nominee Gina McCarthy, who was in charge of EPA rules as assistant administrator for the agency's office for air and radiation, hinted last month that finalizing the proposal may take extra time since it had received nearly 2 million comments on the rules.

McCarthy will face a Senate confirmation hearing in April, Capitol Hill sources said, and is expected to get pushback from lawmakers from states that are heavily reliant on coal.

The EPA proposal says new plants can emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, a standard that effectively blocks construction of new coal-fired plants.

David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and air program, said he has no evidence that the EPA plans to weaken the current proposal but warned that a deadline to finalize the rule is less than one month away.

"If they don't meet the deadline, environmental organizations will start taking the legal steps to get a court to force the deadline," he said.

He added that the EPA holds regular, informal consultations with various stakeholders including green groups and electric utilities to hear proposals for setting an emissions standard from existing power plants.

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner and Valerie Volcovici; Editing by John Wallace and Dale Hudson)

View the original article here

Former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) testifies during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on his nomination to be Defense Secretary, on Capitol Hill in Washington, January 31, 2013. Hagel, 66, is a decorated Vietnam War veteran and a former two-term Republican senator.

WASHINGTON | Sun Feb 17, 2013 6:21pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior Republican senator said on Sunday that party colleagues will drop tactics to delay a vote on former Senator Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary, saying that President Barack Obama's nominee likely has sufficient support to be confirmed into this key post.

"We will have a vote when we get back, and I am confident that Senator Hagel will probably have the votes necessary to be confirmed as the secretary of defense," Arizona Senator John McCain, who has led the opposition against his former Republican colleague, told NBC's "Meet the Press" program.

Democrats, who control the Senate, have scheduled a vote for February 26, after members return from a week-long recess. Republicans held up the nomination last week in a delay characterized as the first time the Senate had used a procedural tactic called a filibuster to block a defense nominee.

With Democrats holding 55 votes in the 100-seat Senate, Hagel's nomination is expected to win the simple majority of 51 votes needed for his confirmation to become the civilian leader at the Pentagon, once such a vote is allowed.

If confirmed, Hagel, a 66-year old decorated Vietnam War veteran, would replace 74-year-old Leon Panetta.

Hagel, who broke from his party as a senator by opposing former President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq War, has faced withering criticism from Republicans since Obama nominated him on January 7 to be the defense secretary.

Some Republicans have questioned if Hagel is sufficiently supportive of Israel, tough enough on Iran or capable of leading the Pentagon. McCain continued on Sunday to voice concern.

"I don't believe he is qualified. But I don't believe we should hold up his nomination any further because I think it is a reasonable amount of time to have questions answered."

(Reporting By Alister Bull; Editing by Philip Barbara)

View the original article here

U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) testifies during his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing to be secretary of state, on Capitol Hill in Washington, January 24, 2013.

WASHINGTON | Thu Jan 31, 2013 2:47pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has hinted it might try Middle East peace-making once again, but Secretary of State-designate John Kerry is likely to move cautiously, in contrast to U.S. President Barack Obama's failed, high-profile first-term initiative.

While the possibility of another failure may hang over the White House, Kerry suggested this week that time was running out for a two-state solution with Israel living alongside a sovereign Palestinian state. He said it would be "disastrous" if it did.

When Obama came into power in 2009, he made peace between Israelis and Palestinians a priority, visiting the State Department two days after taking office to announce his choice of former Senator George Mitchell as his special envoy.

Four years later, the president has little to show for it.

Formal talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians broke down in 2010 within weeks of resuming. Mitchell resigned in 2011 and both sides have since taken steps that have antagonized the other - Israel by building Jewish settlements on land the Palestinians want for a state and the Palestinians by seeking enhanced status at the United Nations.

Against this backdrop, former senior U.S. peace negotiators said they expect Obama to proceed cautiously and to let Kerry, who will be sworn in on Friday, take soundings for any fresh effort. That could allow Obama to avoid investing too much personal capital in a fresh effort until there was a prospect of real progress.

"I believe that Kerry and Obama are committed and interested in doing something," said Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, who advised Democratic and Republican secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli peace negotiations from 1982 to 2003.

However, Miller said the two sides were too far apart right now for any big initiative to succeed and that a more circumspect approach made more sense.

"Unlike last time around ... (Obama) is going to be quite patient and deliberate in avoiding the mistakes he made during his previous run, which is why it's really hard right now ... to predict the arc of any sort of big initiative," he said.

While neither Kerry nor Obama have specified what approach they plan, some of Kerry's allies outside government have suggested that he wants to move aggressively.

Miller and other former U.S. diplomats interviewed said they were not privy to what plans, if any, the two men might have.

However, they said Obama's second term offered a new chance with Kerry, a new chief diplomat who has made no secret of his interest in the Middle East, and that the January 22 Israeli elections created a somewhat better environment for peace despite the intrinsic challenges.

Having watched the peace process unfold, and unravel, from his perch on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee over the last three decades, analysts said Kerry has a deep knowledge of the issue and its players.

Among the obstacles are the divisions within the Israeli and Palestinian societies about making peace; a sense of disbelief that peace itself may ever be possible; and the rise of Islamist parties, notably in Egypt, that may be less supportive of it.

'DISASTROUS'

At his January 24 confirmation hearing, Kerry said "my hope ... my prayer is that perhaps this can be a moment where we can renew some kind of effort to get the parties into a discussion."

"We need to try to find a way forward, and I happen to believe that there is a way forward," he said, but added:

"I also believe that if we can't be successful, the door ... to the possibility of a two-state solution could shut on everybody and that would be disastrous."

The two-state solution refers to the idea of Israel living alongside a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, territories it seized in the 1967 Middle East War.

To achieve this, the two sides would have to agree on borders, Jewish settlements, the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees, compromises that have eluded them for decades.

Martin Indyk, vice president of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution think tank, said there were signs of Obama's skepticism about the odds for peace. He cited a piece by The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg in which Obama is reported to have said "Israel doesn't know what its own best interests are."

Indyk said that if Obama believed "that the prime minister of Israel doesn't have the best interests of Israel at heart, is a political coward, isn't going to take risks for peace - if that your basic view, why would you bother, why would you try?"

"On the other side is John Kerry's belief that the window is closing on the two-state solution and that it is an obligation of the United States to try to stop that from happening, at least to preserve the hope of a two-state solution," he said.

'TESTING THE WATERS'

"The combination could lead to a willingness on the part of the president to have the secretary of state try again, but rather than jump in ... it's likely to be a testing of the waters," Indyk, the former top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East as well as a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, said.

The fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing allies lost ground in Israel's election while centrists did better than expected suggested Israel's next coalition government may tilt more toward peace-making.

"I actually think that this election opens doors, not nails them shut," outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday, adding that a significant number of Israelis were signaling a desire for different approach on peace with the Palestinians as well as on domestic policy.

Dennis Ross, a long-time U.S. Middle East peace envoy now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think tank, said one danger would be if the Palestinian society evolved toward an Islamist rather than a nationalist identity.

"The combination of disbelief on the part of each side and the issue of the future identity of the Palestinians being at stake argues for making an effort," he said. "I think that it's likely that the new secretary of state will make an effort."

(Editing by Warren Strobel and David Brunnstrom)

View the original article here

U.S. President Barack Obama hosts a bipartisan meeting with Congressional leaders in the Roosevelt Room of White House to discuss the economy, November 16, 2012. Left of President Obama is Speaker of the House John Boehner.

WASHINGTON | Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:49am EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The "fiscal cliff" deadline is days away and the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama have left town for Christmas.

But even if they were still here, it wouldn't have mattered, according to Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives. He says they were going nowhere to resolving the disagreement over how to fix the nation's fiscal problems.

Last month's dreams of a "grand bargain" of tax hikes and spending cuts seem long gone. They had been reduced to more modest bargains in mid-December, and as 2013 approaches, are on the verge of relegation to a "stop-gap measure," at best the sort of temporary fix that Congress undertook in 2011.

A stop-gap that puts everything off for a while but resolves nothing is now the most promising alternative, if there is to be one, to the across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts described as a "fiscal cliff" because they threaten to send the U.S. economy plunging into another recession.

It is also the way fiscal showdowns have ended in Washington in recent years.

Such a fix, at best, would delay the spending cuts and tax hikes further into 2013 as well as work to address in a long-term way a government budget that has generated deficits exceeding $1 trillion in each of the last four years. Even worse, it would set up a huge fight in January and February over raising the U.S. debt ceiling, which controls the amount of money the federal government can borrow.

Dysfunction in Washington was specifically cited as one of the reasons rating agency Standard & Poor's cut the U.S. debt rating to AA-plus after a battle over the debt ceiling in 2011. That alone - not to mention going over the cliff - could lead to another rating cut.

At worst, the new year could start with a full-fledged jump off the 'cliff,' with an understanding, communicated to financial markets, that Congress and the White House would come back and try again for a solution.

Given the apparent deadlock, some congressional aides this week said that Washington needed to begin telegraphing to Wall Street that markets should not panic if a "fiscal cliff" deal is not struck in December.

The goal, one aide said on condition of anonymity, is to avoid starting 2013 with a steep stock market drop like the one the U.S. suffered in 2008, when the country's financial industry was falling apart and Congress was divided over what to do.

On Friday, Obama acknowledged that only small steps might be possible with so little time remaining.

Those, the Democratic president said, would consist of extending benefits for the long-term unemployed and keeping income tax rates low for 98 percent of Americans - meaning raising taxes on households with net incomes above $250,000 a year but not for those earning less.

He held out the possibility of something "comprehensive," as he put it, but it had a hollow ring at the close of a work week that saw House Speaker John Boehner step back from negotiations and pursue a partisan plan that even some of his fellow Republicans could not stomach.

MARKET PRESSURE

The steps that Obama outlined were immediately rejected by Republicans, who have given ground on their previous steadfast opposition to any tax hikes but are still demanding that the White House agree to more substantial spending cuts.

"The president has failed to offer any solution that passes the test of balance," declared Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck, minutes after the end of Obama's statement on Friday.

On Saturday, a spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell was similarly dismissive, noting Obama's call had neither bipartisan support nor spending cuts to ride along with tax increases.

McConnell, on Friday, suggested bringing up a House-passed bill that extends current tax rates for all Americans, including the top earners, and then pushes for comprehensive tax reform next year that theoretically could raise new revenues to help cut deficits.

But Obama has promised repeatedly to veto any extension of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts that fail to hike rates for the wealthy.

And Democrats, who control the Senate, have dismissed the McConnell idea, arguing that Obama ran his successful 2012 re-election campaign on a promise of forcing the wealthy to bear more of the burden of deficit reduction.

Democratic aides in Congress think their own bill implementing Obama's $250,000 income threshold, which passed the 100-member Senate in July with 51 votes, could breeze through this month, or next year after the "fiscal cliff" is breached.

The prospect of a breach is being discussed far more seriously now, and not just as a bluff or to set up the other side for blame.

"I think we're going to go over the cliff," said Republican Representative Patrick Tiberi of Ohio. "I don't see something getting done."

In an MSNBC interview Friday, Hoyer, a 31-year veteran of Congress from Maryland, said it wouldn't matter if everyone was in Washington instead of on holiday.

"Frankly, we've been in town for four weeks and members haven`t been doing much," he said, calling it "one of the least productive times that I've been in Congress."

Even Obama speaks of "a mismatch" between how people are thinking about the looming tax hikes and spending cuts "outside of this town and how folks are operating here. And we've just got to get that aligned," he said in his statement.

ITG Investment Research Chief Economist Steve Blitz on Saturday said sliding the "fiscal cliff" negotiations into the new year was not a huge deal. "I think markets will pressure for a deal in January," he said.

The "pressure" could be in the form of a significant stock market drop, which would hit workers' retirement plans, threaten to deter consumer and business spending, and possibly rattle other countries' economies at a time when the global economy is far from robust.

(Additional reporting by Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Martin Howell and Paul Simao)

View the original article here

U.S. President Barack Obama hosts a bipartisan meeting with Congressional leaders in the Roosevelt Room of White House to discuss the economy, November 16, 2012. Left of President Obama is Speaker of the House John Boehner.

WASHINGTON | Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:49am EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The "fiscal cliff" deadline is days away and the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama have left town for Christmas.

But even if they were still here, it wouldn't have mattered, according to Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives. He says they were going nowhere to resolving the disagreement over how to fix the nation's fiscal problems.

Last month's dreams of a "grand bargain" of tax hikes and spending cuts seem long gone. They had been reduced to more modest bargains in mid-December, and as 2013 approaches, are on the verge of relegation to a "stop-gap measure," at best the sort of temporary fix that Congress undertook in 2011.

A stop-gap that puts everything off for a while but resolves nothing is now the most promising alternative, if there is to be one, to the across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts described as a "fiscal cliff" because they threaten to send the U.S. economy plunging into another recession.

It is also the way fiscal showdowns have ended in Washington in recent years.

Such a fix, at best, would delay the spending cuts and tax hikes further into 2013 as well as work to address in a long-term way a government budget that has generated deficits exceeding $1 trillion in each of the last four years. Even worse, it would set up a huge fight in January and February over raising the U.S. debt ceiling, which controls the amount of money the federal government can borrow.

Dysfunction in Washington was specifically cited as one of the reasons rating agency Standard & Poor's cut the U.S. debt rating to AA-plus after a battle over the debt ceiling in 2011. That alone - not to mention going over the cliff - could lead to another rating cut.

At worst, the new year could start with a full-fledged jump off the 'cliff,' with an understanding, communicated to financial markets, that Congress and the White House would come back and try again for a solution.

Given the apparent deadlock, some congressional aides this week said that Washington needed to begin telegraphing to Wall Street that markets should not panic if a "fiscal cliff" deal is not struck in December.

The goal, one aide said on condition of anonymity, is to avoid starting 2013 with a steep stock market drop like the one the U.S. suffered in 2008, when the country's financial industry was falling apart and Congress was divided over what to do.

On Friday, Obama acknowledged that only small steps might be possible with so little time remaining.

Those, the Democratic president said, would consist of extending benefits for the long-term unemployed and keeping income tax rates low for 98 percent of Americans - meaning raising taxes on households with net incomes above $250,000 a year but not for those earning less.

He held out the possibility of something "comprehensive," as he put it, but it had a hollow ring at the close of a work week that saw House Speaker John Boehner step back from negotiations and pursue a partisan plan that even some of his fellow Republicans could not stomach.

MARKET PRESSURE

The steps that Obama outlined were immediately rejected by Republicans, who have given ground on their previous steadfast opposition to any tax hikes but are still demanding that the White House agree to more substantial spending cuts.

"The president has failed to offer any solution that passes the test of balance," declared Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck, minutes after the end of Obama's statement on Friday.

On Saturday, a spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell was similarly dismissive, noting Obama's call had neither bipartisan support nor spending cuts to ride along with tax increases.

McConnell, on Friday, suggested bringing up a House-passed bill that extends current tax rates for all Americans, including the top earners, and then pushes for comprehensive tax reform next year that theoretically could raise new revenues to help cut deficits.

But Obama has promised repeatedly to veto any extension of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts that fail to hike rates for the wealthy.

And Democrats, who control the Senate, have dismissed the McConnell idea, arguing that Obama ran his successful 2012 re-election campaign on a promise of forcing the wealthy to bear more of the burden of deficit reduction.

Democratic aides in Congress think their own bill implementing Obama's $250,000 income threshold, which passed the 100-member Senate in July with 51 votes, could breeze through this month, or next year after the "fiscal cliff" is breached.

The prospect of a breach is being discussed far more seriously now, and not just as a bluff or to set up the other side for blame.

"I think we're going to go over the cliff," said Republican Representative Patrick Tiberi of Ohio. "I don't see something getting done."

In an MSNBC interview Friday, Hoyer, a 31-year veteran of Congress from Maryland, said it wouldn't matter if everyone was in Washington instead of on holiday.

"Frankly, we've been in town for four weeks and members haven`t been doing much," he said, calling it "one of the least productive times that I've been in Congress."

Even Obama speaks of "a mismatch" between how people are thinking about the looming tax hikes and spending cuts "outside of this town and how folks are operating here. And we've just got to get that aligned," he said in his statement.

ITG Investment Research Chief Economist Steve Blitz on Saturday said sliding the "fiscal cliff" negotiations into the new year was not a huge deal. "I think markets will pressure for a deal in January," he said.

The "pressure" could be in the form of a significant stock market drop, which would hit workers' retirement plans, threaten to deter consumer and business spending, and possibly rattle other countries' economies at a time when the global economy is far from robust.

(Additional reporting by Rachelle Younglai; Editing by Martin Howell and Paul Simao)

View the original article here

LONDON | Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:18am EST

LONDON (Reuters) - Global temperatures are forecast to be 0.57 degrees above the long-term average next year, making 2013 one of the warmest years on record, Britain's Met Office said on Thursday.

"It is very likely that 2013 will be one of the warmest 10 years in the record which goes back to 1850, and it is likely to be warmer than 2012," the Met Office said in its annual forecast for the coming year.

Next year was expected to be between 0.43 and 0.71 degrees Celsius warmer than the long-term global average of 14 degrees (1961-1990), with a best estimate of around 0.57, it said.

Its forecast is based on its own research as well as data from the University of East Anglia, the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Rising temperatures could be due to the natural variability of the climate and global warming from increasing greenhouse gas emissions, Dave Britton, Met Office forecaster, told Reuters.

A warmer global average temperature does not necessarily mean every region of the world will get hotter, as regional climate variability produces different effects in different parts of the world, he added.

Eleven of the 12 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001, according to data from the World Meteorological Organisation.

Last year is ranked the warmest on record, having been 0.54 degrees above the long-term average, while 2012 is ranked the ninth warmest, with a rise of 0.45 degree Celsius.

Many scientists blame increasing temperatures on man-made greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels and say they can lead to rising sea levels and extreme weather events.

Global carbon dioxide emissions hit a record high in 2011, led by China, the International Energy Agency said in May.

This year has already seen several examples of extreme weather events, such as superstorm Sandy which hit the east coast of the United States in October. Parts of the United States also experienced their worst drought in more than half a century this summer.

Britain had been suffering a drought before a record wet spring and early summer.

Last week, a leaked draft report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change showed global average temperatures could be more than 2 degrees above average by 2100 and may reach 4.8 degrees.

Low-lying island states and other countries vulnerable to rising sea levels, floods and hurricanes have been putting pressure on developed countries to curb greenhouse gas emissions and keep the rise in temperatures to within a limit of 2 degrees this century.

A U.N. conference aimed at curbing emissions ended this month with little progress.

(Editing by David Holmes)

View the original article here