Barack Obama is failing miserably on his promises reduce America’s carbon footprint. On Friday, Bloomberg News reported that Senator John Kerry said that the Senate will likely pass a Climate Change Bill that “puts America on track” to reducing carbon emissions but will likely fail to ratify an international Climate Change treaty. In other words, Copenhagen has been compromised.
Kerry’s admission that the US probably can’t ratify any treaty that comes out of Copenhagen compromises the summit in three ways: it reduces the ability of any country to negotiate for future emissions reductions that are high enough to be effective to prevent run-away climate change, it preemptively reduces the level of carbon emissions reductions that any country will commit to, it undermines any effort at making fast-growing emerging markets promise to improve carbon efficiency at a high enough level, and it reduces the responsibility of participating states to abide by any treaty agreed at Copenhagen. Without the world’s largest carbon emitter completely on board, there is no hope.
But hooray for America for passing the Waxman-Markey bill which legislates 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 on a 2005 baseline! Show the world the way forward, show the world how important it is to reduce carbon emissions and come to an agreement at Copenhagen to prevent runaway climate change! Way to go! Even though the UK has legislated a 34% and the EU a 20% reduction by 2020, both from a 1990 baseline. Despite the difference in baseline, the US is still the largest carbon emitter in either 1990 or 2005. Nice effort America. Way to lead Mr. President.
Kerry’s statement makes the passage of a toothless Climate Change bill, the Waxman-Markey Bill, by the US House of Representatives last week that much worse. The bill stripped the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) of it’s ability to regulate coal power thereby not preventing coal-fired power stations from being built in the future. The bill promises not to examine the environmental impacts of biofuels (which on net do not emit less carbon than fossil fuels when you take into account the production process; I won’t even mention price distortions biofuels cause in global commodities markets). The bill does not require the agriculture industry (including meat industry) to assess it's carbon emissions; instead it includes provisions that allow for big agriculture to make windfall profits from carbon offsets and drive out small family farthers (sustainable agriculture, I think not). According to the US director of Greenpeace Phil Radford, “The Renewable Energy Standard requires less new clean energy than we would have without this bill passing.” He also cited scientific evidence that US carbon emissions would have to be reduced 20-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 in order to prevent “catastrophic climate impacts.” The Waxman-Markey bill only provides for a 4-7% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. Proponents of the bill like Joseph Romm from the conservative think tank Center for American Progress told Yale Environment 360 that the Waxman-Markey bill is compatible with preventing a 2 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures; last week scientists in the UK declared that 2 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures is guaranteed.
The bill also establishes an EU like emissions trading system which looks primed to repeat the mistakes the EU system has made. Namely by handing out some carbon permits for free, which according to WWF allowed for 6-15 billion Euros in windfall profits in the UK and 14-34 billion Euros in Germany, “providing a free allocation… does reduce the incentives provided by the scheme to invest in low emissions generation technology.” Issuing free permits coupled with over-issue of permits means that carbon per tonne is ridiculously underpriced in the EU ETS scheme. Free permits means the market price for carbon is distorted, the Carbon Trust’s chief economist Michael Grubb told Reuters recently. Granted, free permits in the US scheme will be “regulated” by state agencies such that any increase in the price of energy is felt by energy companies rather than consumers. This method should induce investment in efficient technology, but will simultaneously fail to induce consumers to use less energy. It isn’t enough that technologies become more efficient, people will have to learn to consume differently, to consume less in order to prevent runaway climate change.
It was the president's responsibility to lead on Climate Change, not just the US but the international community as well. His ability to lead at Copenhagen is now compromised. Sorry sir, but you've Missed the Bear, again.
Kerry’s admission that the US probably can’t ratify any treaty that comes out of Copenhagen compromises the summit in three ways: it reduces the ability of any country to negotiate for future emissions reductions that are high enough to be effective to prevent run-away climate change, it preemptively reduces the level of carbon emissions reductions that any country will commit to, it undermines any effort at making fast-growing emerging markets promise to improve carbon efficiency at a high enough level, and it reduces the responsibility of participating states to abide by any treaty agreed at Copenhagen. Without the world’s largest carbon emitter completely on board, there is no hope.
But hooray for America for passing the Waxman-Markey bill which legislates 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 on a 2005 baseline! Show the world the way forward, show the world how important it is to reduce carbon emissions and come to an agreement at Copenhagen to prevent runaway climate change! Way to go! Even though the UK has legislated a 34% and the EU a 20% reduction by 2020, both from a 1990 baseline. Despite the difference in baseline, the US is still the largest carbon emitter in either 1990 or 2005. Nice effort America. Way to lead Mr. President.
Kerry’s statement makes the passage of a toothless Climate Change bill, the Waxman-Markey Bill, by the US House of Representatives last week that much worse. The bill stripped the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) of it’s ability to regulate coal power thereby not preventing coal-fired power stations from being built in the future. The bill promises not to examine the environmental impacts of biofuels (which on net do not emit less carbon than fossil fuels when you take into account the production process; I won’t even mention price distortions biofuels cause in global commodities markets). The bill does not require the agriculture industry (including meat industry) to assess it's carbon emissions; instead it includes provisions that allow for big agriculture to make windfall profits from carbon offsets and drive out small family farthers (sustainable agriculture, I think not). According to the US director of Greenpeace Phil Radford, “The Renewable Energy Standard requires less new clean energy than we would have without this bill passing.” He also cited scientific evidence that US carbon emissions would have to be reduced 20-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 in order to prevent “catastrophic climate impacts.” The Waxman-Markey bill only provides for a 4-7% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. Proponents of the bill like Joseph Romm from the conservative think tank Center for American Progress told Yale Environment 360 that the Waxman-Markey bill is compatible with preventing a 2 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures; last week scientists in the UK declared that 2 degree Celsius rise in global temperatures is guaranteed.
The bill also establishes an EU like emissions trading system which looks primed to repeat the mistakes the EU system has made. Namely by handing out some carbon permits for free, which according to WWF allowed for 6-15 billion Euros in windfall profits in the UK and 14-34 billion Euros in Germany, “providing a free allocation… does reduce the incentives provided by the scheme to invest in low emissions generation technology.” Issuing free permits coupled with over-issue of permits means that carbon per tonne is ridiculously underpriced in the EU ETS scheme. Free permits means the market price for carbon is distorted, the Carbon Trust’s chief economist Michael Grubb told Reuters recently. Granted, free permits in the US scheme will be “regulated” by state agencies such that any increase in the price of energy is felt by energy companies rather than consumers. This method should induce investment in efficient technology, but will simultaneously fail to induce consumers to use less energy. It isn’t enough that technologies become more efficient, people will have to learn to consume differently, to consume less in order to prevent runaway climate change.
It was the president's responsibility to lead on Climate Change, not just the US but the international community as well. His ability to lead at Copenhagen is now compromised. Sorry sir, but you've Missed the Bear, again.
Comments (0)
Post a Comment