Do you see a vase or an old woman?

Waxman-Markey Rorschach blot, illustrated 5

I said in a post the other day that the Waxman-Markey bill is a Rorschach blot. Here’s a good way of making the point.

This is the World Resources Institute’s estimate of emissions reductions under Waxman-Markey—the original draft released in April:

emission reductions under original version of Waxman-Markey

Here’s WRI’s updated estimate for the hashed-over Waxman-Markey bill introduced to committee this week:

emission reductions under updated version of Waxman-Markey

Is this a grotesque ruination brought on by special interests or a modest adjustment necessary to build a political coalition with a fighting chance? As I said, I’m seeing it kind of shimmer back and forth between those two states, and it’s making me a little dizzy.

Here are WRI’s key findings:

    • The pollution caps proposed in the ACESA would reduce total GHG emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 73 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

    • When all complementary requirements of the ACESA are considered in addition to the caps, GHG emissions would be reduced 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 75 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

    • When additional potential emission reductions are considered, the ACESA could achieve maximum reductions of up to 33 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and up to 81 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The actual amount of reductions will depend on the quantity of international offsets used for compliance.

    • The ACESA’s proposed pollution caps result in reductions of total GHG emissions of 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. This is less than the 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels that the Waxman Markey Discussion Draft as released would have achieved. (Click the chart for a high-resolution version.)

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

    Christopher S. Johnson Posted 3:10 pm
    21 May 2009

    Why the big change in the "Business as Usual" red line? Am I missing something? 

    Permalink

    1. David Roberts's avatar

      David Roberts Posted 9:48 am
      22 May 2009

      I think the new baseline accounts for the economic slowdown and the stimulus bill.

      Permalink

      1. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

        Christopher S. Johnson Posted 10:24 am
        22 May 2009

        Wow.  Fascinating.

        Permalink

  2. Gar Lipow's avatar

    Gar Lipow Posted 9:38 pm
    21 May 2009

    David, these projections assume that offsets are at least 80% additional. That is freakin optimistic. I think the land use and sectorial offsets may end up worse than current CDM.  

    Permalink

  3. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

    Christopher S. Johnson Posted 1:20 pm
    31 May 2009

    I came back to look at this again today. Thanks for posting.Please note that there is still a major misconception that lay people like me have when looking at these projections. I have to slap myself to make sure I remember: The actual CO2 in the atmosphere isn't going to go down anytime soon after we make our reductions because of the 'clogged bathtub' effect. We shouldn't be fooled into thinking that atmospheric CO2 is going to go down like emissions are going to go down. At least not for a millennium, right?This also makes me doubt the whole 350 movement. WHEN could we get the atmosphere back to 350ppm? Even at ZERO emissions??

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement