I've heard quite a bit of protest about the fact that the Lieberman-Warner climate bill's long-term target -- 70 percent emissions reductions by 2050 -- is too weak. In particular, there was much outcry that Sanders' amendment No. 4, which would have raised it from 70 percent to 80 percent, was rejected (and cries that Sanders was a sellout for voting the bill through anyway).
This comes in the context of a larger debate about which of the four elements of climate policy are most important. They are:
- Short-term emissions targets
- Long-term emissions targets
- Allocation of pollution permits, which is, among other things, an issue of social justice
- Lookbacks (built-in mechanisms to periodically re-assess and adjust targets based on the latest scientific results)
To me, the intense focus on L-W's 2050 target seems misplaced. The short-term target is much more important (and is, for the record, quite good, as good as the one in the much-heralded Sanders-Boxer bill).
To see why, imagine two bills that could be passed today, both with the same 2020 target but with different 2050 targets. (Say they share the L-W 2020 target of 15 percent reductions from 2005 levels by 2020, but one has a 2050 target of 70 percent reductions [like L-W] and one 80 percent [like S-B].)
Now imagine, if you will, the U.S. in 2020.
Three presidential administrations will have passed. Oil prices will probably be much higher, but they could have stabilized, or even fallen. There will probably be a new international climate agreement in place. The mortgage crisis could have caused a deep recession, or it could have passed by with no substantial harm. The Middle East could have spiraled into wider regional conflict, or calmed down; we could be in Iraq or out of it. We could have suffered another high-profile terrorist strike, or several, or none. Technology could have rendered renewables cheaper than coal, or made sequestration cheap, or perfected fission. Climate science could be predicting much worse and faster impacts from global warming, or not. The 2008 elections could have ushered in a generational political shift, keeping New Green Deal Democrats in office for 12 years running; Giuliani could have won in 2008 and remained dictator through 2020.
In short, nobody has the faintest clue what's going to be happening in 2020. There are only more or less wild, more or less informed guesses, all of them just this side of throwing darts.
Nowhere are things changing faster than around climate and energy (recall, if you will, the energy discussion in 1995). Imagine our collective decisions in 2020 regarding what to do about climate and energy. Do you think a bill passed in early 2008 is going to meaningfully constrain our options? Will we accept that we're locked in to the 70 percent or 80 percent target, despite what we've learned and been through since it was passed?
I really don't think so. For the most part, the long-term target is a problem statement: this is how bad things are. It's a marker, an expression of consensus intention. We're saying we ought to start acting now as if our emissions will be reduced by x amount by 2050. Small differences in that target won't ultimately make much pragmatic difference in what gets done in 15, 20, 30 years.
For similar reasons, while I view mandated scientific lookbacks as more important than long-term targets, ultimately, if success came down to it, I'd let them go. We will be having social and political lookbacks frequently. They're called elections. Science will play the role it plays; I doubt we'll be more influenced by a mandated scientific assessment than we would by a voluntary one. It will be public sentiment and politics that determines how the target gets adjusted.
To me, then, it comes down to the short-term target and permit allocations. The former determines how fast we plan to scramble, and the latter expresses how much we value fairness.
Me, I think we need to scramble quickly, so L-W's 2020 target is encouraging. I also think we need to establish early and firmly that we plan on going though the coming energy transition in a way that spreads both the costs and the benefits equitably, so I favor 100 percent auction, with the revenue used in part to reduce regressive taxes, finance job training programs for the working class, and finance substantial international aid.
On the latter score, L-W is disappointing. It's an enormous initial giveaway to Big Coal, the number of auctioned permits rises to 100 percent much too slowly, and there's too little in the bill explicitly devoted to equity. If you're going to ding the bill for something, ding it for that, not for the precise number placed on a far-off target.
To summarize, short-term targets and permit auctions are the biggies. Both are ultimately focused on the same thing: picking the right trajectory and getting the f*ck moving.
Boxer and Reid delay Senate action on climate bill until September
MoveOn calls on Senate to preserve Clean Air Act in climate bill
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
Comments
View as Flat
ids Posted 4:22 am
10 Dec 2007
short sighted
Kyoto seeks a 1990 -5% level by 2012, and is currently seen as too weak to prevent meltdown.
L-W seeks a 1990 -5% by 2020, and with 15% offsets factored in, actual emissions will hit that level by 2026.
It seems to require little sacrifice in near term from U.S., just like the Bush war on terror.
Permalink
siahtam Posted 6:42 am
10 Dec 2007
Good points
Thanks for making these points. While L-W isn't the perfect bill, it is a HUGE first step. It will, however, continue to be important to stay focused on the long-term GHG reduction goals for 2050 and even 2100 (!).
In my opinion, the chatter for 80% by 2050 has prevented a more substantive debate from occurring about where L-W actually stands compared to the other bills.
It's also great that you continue to focus on allocation from a fairness standpoint, but it needs to be stated somewhere that allocation does not effect GHG reductions. Even if permits are handed out to corrupt companies, GHG emissions will decline regardless. Too often, I've heard that the scientific consensus indicates that there must be a 100% auction of permits to mitigate the effects of climate change which is completely false and misleading.
Permalink
JasonMorris Posted 7:13 am
10 Dec 2007
13 years is a long time
You're right about 2020 being a long ways away. Consider in 1995 (about equidistant to now): Clinton was President, gas was under $2 per gallon easy, more people knew about ozone threats than global warming, etc. Did anyone ever hear anything about biofuels in 1995? Fuel cells? Ethanol? CFLs? I saw the end of The American President (Michael Douglas) this weekend and that was released in 1995. A major plot point? The White House backing of a climate bill calling for 20% reduction in gases that cause global warming. I was shocked to see how long this has been a topic and how little progress has been made from a public policy perspective. Amazing. Good post.
Jason Morris http://www.schwartz-pr.com/crossroads/
Permalink
randino Posted 7:42 am
10 Dec 2007
This bill is a start.
Nothing more. It is a start under far from ideal conditions. It is doubtful if it will make it through the gauntlet of the dinosauers in the senate.
The big kahuna is going to be the 2008 elections and the absolute necessity of knocking some very big holes in the ranks of the obstructionist Republicans, so that you can start to get what you want, instead of what you have to settle for. Then once you get through stomping the GOP into the mud, prepare to kick a little Democratic ass as well, just to remind them who helped put them there. Dems can be a little forgetful on that point.
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:49 am
10 Dec 2007
True that. 2020 is a crap shoot
Jason,
I saw "The American President" recently and thought the exact same thing. That movie was made 12 years ago.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:05 am
10 Dec 2007
This bill is a blockade.
My assesment of any of the Climate Change bills offered this year is that they are intended to put a cork in the flow of more effective legislation by declaring lofty goals and not supporting them with effective legislation.
The quickest way to allow industry to rush to alternative energy sources is a carbon tax that places the cost of solar power just slightly cheaper than coal on a ten year investment cycle.
The quickest way to get GHG emission reductions would be to go on a crash program of geo-exchange heating and cooling installation.
The quickest way to fund all of the above and make them politically palatable is to refund 90% of the carbon tax to SS#'s on a per-capita basis like the Alaska oil fund and use the other 10% to fund geothermal. The average voter would get a check that would more than offset their added energy costs. Jon Edwards and Al Gore would take a beating fueling their big-ass houses.
Since an effective law would be about three pages and the proposed law is probably about the size of a phone book you can assume that they are vehicles for fraud.
There is no real intention in Congress to make effective headway on Climate Change. Current action is there to secure the profits of those already privilidged.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:24 am
10 Dec 2007
Pangolin,
Off topic: I can not spell "privilege" and "privileged" correctly to save my damn life. Even after years of getting it wrong and correcting it, I still eff it up to this day, still rely on the spellchecker (which, PS, is built into Firefox). It's like some sort of weird mental block. Glad to see I'm not alone.
On your cynicism: it's too easy. There are people up on the hill that genuinely care about this stuff, and they're fighting hard against a lot of people who don't. Dismissing the entire process as one hopelessly corrupt wash only strengthens the hand of the bad actors. People who misuse government for private gain want nothing more than for people to be disgusted and tune out from the whole thing.
grist.org
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 12:25 pm
10 Dec 2007
On Cynicism, Pessimism vs Fatalism
Cynicism is the result of watching Capitol Hill ignore the science well past the point where it was not only valid but damn near platinum solid. The arctic ice cap really doesn't care if we would like weather convienent for crop growth it's going to melt when enough heat is added to the system. Neither does the Siberian permafrost care that coal is a bit cheaper or consider the feelings of the US blogosphere before it releases it's age old load of methane. The tipping point appears to be somewhere behind us unless we switch to a Younger Dryas glaciation.
Pessimism is the thought that many more people will die before Congress gets serious. IMHO 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 is not a serious measure when the current load of CO2 in the atmosphere appears to be pushing us into rapid climate change. That is the regime we will have to live with NOW before everybody wakes up tomorrow and drives and flies and requests power from coal fired power plants for various wants and needs. We appear to have already purchased rapid climate change and are making the down payment on catastrophic climate change. Pessimism is easily achieved when the most minor changes in GHG emissions evade us when what we really need is a negative carbon cycle. All of the laws currently proposed don't even appear to check the growth of GHG emissions.
Fatalism would appear to be the logical response to the facts. I reject fatalism. I will accept any feasible solution to the problem up to and including whacking an uninhabited portion of the planet with a small asteroid on purpose. Pushing the atmosphere into a minor ice age is probably preferable to a runaway greenhouse effect. I will continue to demand action and promote answers and debate options in the faint hope that somebody might glance at the debate and reach the proper conclusions. Hopefully somebody with some political leadership skills. We have to be willing to examine and re-examine every option including nuclear power repeatedly to weed out flaws and establish multiple plans of action.
The mainstream media has given us the hydrogen hype, the ethanol rush, carbon offsets, carbon capture and storage and is still promoting half measures and profiteering schemes as solutions. Each time the blogosphere of which this is a node debates the facts of the matter and shreds the trivia. Blog debates have had a huge influence in spreading useful information and dismissing half-baked schemes. What we do here and in other places on the net is useful even if any one of us is wrong at any one time. Like making sausage the production is ugly but the result is good.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 1:10 pm
10 Dec 2007
Science Debate
I like Pangolin's comments about the media. In general, it represents what you get from watching too much television.
I would call attention to the growing idea about a Science Debate 2008. This arose along the intersection of science and media and I used the word intersection with purpose. Chris Mooney is one of the proponents. However, they do have a few "names" who have signed on to the idea, including:
Peter Agre
Vice Chancellor for science and technology at Duke University Medical Center, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2003
John H. Gibbons
Former Science Adviser to the President
Congressman Wayne T. Gilchrest, R-MD
1st District, MD
Shirley Tilghman
President, Princeton University
And many, mnay more.
It would be interesting to have the candidate face to face with those who really know what they are talking about and where the candidates would have no opportunity to ask an aide to schedule a briefing.
Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 4:42 pm
10 Dec 2007
a quibble and a conundrum
I agree with you, DR.
But when you write about the auction issues, there are many axis of disagreement besides coal v. non-coal. And even along the coal v. non-coal axis, the divisions are often regional instead of simply company v. consumer.
The regional stuff is important when counting votes on the Hill. Need to add that factor to your analysis.
The conundrum is how to raise carbon costs without hurting the poor. Not easily done. Gore and Pangolin's solution is elegant, but politically dead for at least a decade. So where is Plan B?
My guess is that the key is to make sure we get something for the pain. The pain is coming. But will the price signal be significant enough to prompt individual action, and will the costly choice be clear enough and easy enough to choose so that ordinary people feel that they are choosing to help -- or will they just feel gouged? Slow pain (steady price rises), and no visible progress or changes to lifestyle, seem to me to be the worst possible outcome. So how much should we cushion the blow? Wouldn't a sharp price rise at the start, combined with tax incentives for geo-thermal HVAC systems and solar stuff, etc., be better suited to prompt progress?
The devil is in the details. I don't know the best approach. But I suspect that the problem is not addressed by simply trying to reduce price increases suffered by the poor. In general, that is coming. But what will we get for it, and when?
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 2:44 am
11 Dec 2007
Coal vs. Non-Coal, Ethanol vs. ???
The devil is always in the regional details. Even normally progressive Barbara Boxer refuses to deal with the problem of Farm Subsidies to the big growers of commodity crops (ethanol anyone) because "we have our cotton people and our rice people". Glad we don't have corn in California.
The combined distortions of the RFS mandate in this energy bill, along with the subsidies for corn production, are still going to make this a doubly expensive proposition. I will pay the subsidy as a tax payer and I will pay for the RFS generated transfer from food to energy not at the gas pump, but in the supermarket. Again... another reason not to be poor in America.
Get rid of the Farm Subsidies ($4.5 billion for corn in 2005) and get rid of RFS and see what you have left. When discussing energy, you need to put the farm subsidy costs into the equation.
Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US
Permalink