I missed this last week -- and one can argue about how significant this stream of never-to-be-brought-to-the-floor bills really is anyway -- but nonetheless, check out Sen. Jeffords' Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act. Here are the highlights:
· Requires that the U.S. reduce its emissions between 2010 and 2020 to 1990 levels. By 2030, the U.S. must reduce its emissions by 1/3 of 80% percent below 1990 levels, by 2040 by 2/3 of 80% percent below 1990 levels and by 2050, to a level that is 80 percent below 1990 levels.
· Requires that power plants, automobiles and carbon intensive businesses reduce their global warming pollution.
· In the event that global atmospheric concentrations exceed 450 parts per million or that average global temperatures increase above 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average, EPA can require additional reductions.
· Provides for standards and grants for sequestration of greenhouse gases.
· The National Academy of Sciences will report to EPA and the Congress to determine whether goals of the Act have been met.
· Requires the US to derive 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
· Establishes energy efficiency standards similar those found in California and ten other states.
· Invests in innovative technologies.
It has eight co-sponsors, all Democrats. (If only we had a third party to, you know, co-co-sponsor these things ...)
(via ED)
Comments View as Flat
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:29 am
29 Jul 2006
Interesting proposal....
A couple comments- this would reduce our CO2 emissions to roughly 1,000 million tons in 2050, which is about an 85% cut in emissions from today. I don't know enough about whether this is feasible without a massive reduction in U.S. living standards so someone else would have to comment on that- it is certainly very ambitious and very costly and also, something like this done alone, without getting the developing nations like China and India on board would ultimately do little to stave off global warming because their energy use is growing at huge rates- If this was simply one step towards a larger multilateral agreement that would be one thing, but not sure how China and India, which are building a new coal plant each week and have about 2 billion people that want electricity are going to agree to 85% reductions at just the time they are developing. I don't make these points to say that no agreement is possible only that I would like to know both the costs of this one to the U.S. and what the plans are for a global agreement to follow. Definitely got to give Jeffors respect though for putting this out there.
J.S.
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:23 am
29 Jul 2006
The obese man looks askance at diets . . .
. . . and wonders whether those skinny people over there shouldn't be made to diet too, just to be "fair" and such.
One hesitates to suggest that anyone as exalted as an Assistant Professor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies is simply a troll for the National Association of Manufacturers
(http://blog.nam.org/archives/global_warming/) but that is certainly how it's starting to appear.
Apparently, the US, far and away the most profligate waster of energy in the world, shouldn't cut greenhouse gas emissions until China and India--two countries that both emit LESS greenhouse gas per person than the global average--make cuts.
Apparently, white skin is not only an entitlement to use up all the world's resources, it's also a god-given right to make all the greenhouse gas emissions your consumer economy desires, because lord knows we can't hurt the economy (... and climate disruption won't cost a thing).
Stabilizing global climate doesn't require China and India to make 85% cuts, you malignant propaganda-spewing moron. China and India could swear off fossil fuels entirely this instant and the global problem would not change significantly, because all 2.5 billion of them are BELOW AVERAGE per-capita emitters.
The people who have to make the cuts are the ABOVE AVERAGE emitters--and that would be US.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:23 am
29 Jul 2006
JMG....can you do me a favor
and try to be respectful- if that's not too much to ask. If you disagree with my points great- that's what this forum is about- and feel free to criticize anything and everything I say, but no need to call people trolls and all that, right? Thanks- I appreciate it. And by the way, if you just relax you might realize that I actually want to help improve the environment too.
J.S.
Assistant Professor Monterey Institute of International Studies http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:25 am
29 Jul 2006
Also, if you think that...
China and India are not part of the problem and must be part of the solution, then I suggest that you go and do more studying- there is not a single credible person who believes that- you simply don't have the basic facts. And really, no more name-calling or I'm going to request that you be barred from this site- that's not acceptable- we're adults here.
J.S.
Assistant Professor Monterey Institute of International Studies http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:19 pm
29 Jul 2006
Innovative reactions to climate change
Jason is right about the impact of India, China and other industrializing countries. Their projected growth in oil & coal use is a huge issue. (It's nice to be able to agree with JS for a change... in addition to agreeing about the folly of criminalizing drugs).
JMG is right about the hypocrisy of the West in pointing fingers at India and China. JMG's anger is nothing compared to the anger that is latent in those countries.
I disagree with Jason when he equates a drop in CO2 emissions (and indirectly energy use) to a fall in living standards. Europeans, for example, use a fraction of the energy that North Americans do and I would argue that living standards in many European countries are higher.
There are many pro-capitalist reasons to decrease energy use.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:27 am
30 Jul 2006
Good points
A great table on global energy consumption can be found here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/energyconsumption.html
A couple quick things- I think the U.S. can greatly reduce CO2 emissions at a relatively low cost (there is plenty of evidence to support this)- whether we can reduce by 85% at a low cost is questionable, but certainly possible. The key really will be all of the new countries coming on line- China, India, Eastern Europe, oil-producing African states, and also whether people will start massively exploiting the Canadian coal shale. So in fact, ironically, even though the U.S. is by far the largest emitter, even if we dramatically reduce CO2 this is just the beginning and by no means sufficient to make any major dent in the prospects for climate change.
J.S.
Assistant Professor Monterey Institute of International Studies http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:38 am
30 Jul 2006
Also, FYI
check out what the oil futures market thinks about the price of oil over the next 5+years
http://quotes.ino.com/exchanges/?r=NYMEX_CL
J.S.
Assistant Professor Monterey Institute of International Studies http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:04 am
30 Jul 2006
That is the beauty of the future,
Its unpredictability.
Not to worry. This is not the Soviet Union (yet). It won't happen unless living standards are kept at an acceptable level, and given today's technology, it isn't feasible. But given tomorrow's technology, it may be, in fact I am going to bet that it will be. Legislation like this can work because it gives a direction to technology growth. Profit seekers begin placing their bets and focusing their attentions on ideas that will fit into a framework that emphasizes low CO2 emissions. It is the government's role to create level playing fields and then get out of the way. The danger is that our politicians are not wise enough to stay out of the fray once they have created the playing field. They are always tempted to rig the game for their favorite team (with subsidies), which screws everything up, just like it does in any sports event.
The Prius is the tip of the iceberg. The free market spawned it and there is a lot more to come.
As for the developing nations, they will either lead the world in developing this new technology or in the least, incorportate it. For example, if fusion becomes economically viable, coal plants will quickly go the way of gas lighting. Not to say that I am not betting on fusion, I am betting on a combination of technologies that have not been imagined yet combined with a change in consumptive patterns similar to the sudden and unpredicted changes in fertility patterns that has curbed the population explosion. To get that to happen, a meme has to take hold, and that meme may help to be propogated via the blogsphere.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:58 am
30 Jul 2006
Apology
I apologize for losing my temper and stooping to ad hominem comments. The rage and despair I feel when I encounter patronizing protelyzation for the kind of rascist corporate friendly economics that is leading us all to the climate abyss made me comment injudiously. I despise what you promote and only wish that you and those who think like you could experience just a tiny fraction of the suffering that your economic imperialism is now inflicting and will increasingly inflict on those who are less fortunate than you. But, you have a right to your views, and I will restrict my comments to those henceforth.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:15 am
30 Jul 2006
JMG- for the record...
I am doing what I think is best to help both people and the environment and I am quite aware of the problems of the world- I just look at the solutions differently than you. The beauty of a free society is that you want work in whatever capacity you think is best and I will as well, and hopefully the best ideas, policies, and solutions will win out. I don't believe that I have all of the answers, and whereas I used to believe that capitalism and markets were responsible for much of the degradation in the world, after many years of intense study I no longer believe that to be the case. Please feel free to criticize markets and capitalism all you want, but I think the truth about capitalism is akin to what Churchill said about democracy- it's the worst system except for all the others.
J.S.
Assistant Professor Monterey Institute of International Studies http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:01 am
30 Jul 2006
For the blog record.
Using conservative numbers, $200 solar will buy 25 barrels of oil equivalent. That means we can live our lifestyle carbon-free.
Using my numbers, $100/25 bbl./25 years Denver, $100/16 bbl./25 yr. Seattle.
Free markets in the US is an oxymoron.
Don't carpool alone.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:37 pm
30 Jul 2006
China and India and the Developing World
One of the aspects of Kyoto that people tend to ignore, was that it called for technology transfers to help the developing countries grow economically with less contribution to global warming.
If Americans refuse to reduce their emmissions, how about at least helping the rest of the world achieve their growth with as little addition to the problem as possible?
Ironically, in the developing world, people are being asked to sacrifice for the sake of sustainable development and the future. America should do the same and then, only then, can it earn the right to criticize the developing world.
I agree with JMG, though not the intemperate language, but the feeling.
And Jason, you engage in your own share of name calling, as well, every time you dismiss others as immature, irrational, etc. This is a form of name calling, though you may not realize it.
Any act that heads the US in the right direction is useful for opening discussion, if nothing else.
My main criticism of this is that it puts the reductions too far into the future, and thus likely in the out of sight, out of mind category. But it is a good talking point.
patrick
Permalink
JMG Posted 10:45 pm
30 Jul 2006
Who's the problem?
(From the Assn. for Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) Weekly PO Review)
Commentary: Oil Exporters Consuming More, Eventually Will Export Less
Excerpts from articles by Jeff Rubin and Randy Kirk, with comments by Steve Andrews
(Note: Commentaries do not necessarily represent ASPO-USA's positions; they are personal statements and observations by informed commentators.)
When people ask who to blame for high oil prices, analysts typically point fingers at a combination of tight supply plus growing demand in China (up 216,000 b/d last year), India and the US. But that tells only part of the story, as shown by BP's consumption data for 2005. Here's an important reality flying under the radar screen: during 2005, the OPEC nations' growth in oil consumption outpaced demand growth in China by a three-to-two margin. And OPEC's demand growth trend has been reliable: Saudi Arabia's oil consumption has steadily increased 18 out of the last 20 years. OPEC consumption, which already exceeds China's demand, is expected to hit 10 million b/d by 2010 (Table 1).
Yet the story about growing demand by exporters doesn't stop with OPEC. Last year, Mexico's growth in domestic oil consumption . . . (more . . .)
Permalink
bluestems Posted 7:37 pm
05 May 2007
what's the alternative?
I'd ask J.S., if not this proposal, then what is the alternative?
I would rather see a solid attempt to reach an 85% reduction, and perhaps we won't make it; however, this is a chaotic system, so any reduction will have an impact. And, if an effort is not made today, at what cost later?
Environmental stewardship and economic progress does not need to be an either-or scenario. Organizations like the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) are consultants to businesses and countries (including China!) in real solutions that are economically feasible.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 2:04 am
06 May 2007
Seeking pro-rata cuts precludes agreement.
Jason -
You wrote :
[I'm] "not sure how China and India, which are building a new coal plant each week and have about 2 billion people that want electricity are going to agree to 85% reductions at just the time they are developing."
This appears to assume that if the US cuts GHG output by 85%, developing nations should be expected to do the same.
Given that we, the developed nations, are responsible for over 75% of the current excess atmospheric CO2,
and for the massed casualties and loss it is causing,
and that we've profited mightily by its emission,
the idea of expecting pro-rata cuts seems to me somewhat naive.
Quite apart from grossly inequitable.
And, critically, wholly destructive of the possibility of an agreement between "North" & "South"
of the requisite "Treaty of the Atmospheric Commons."
In dismissing a pro-rata arrangement,
and recognizing that the nations' CO2 outputs correlate strongly with their GDPs,
I'd suggest that a more equitable arrangement will not only be negotiable,
but will also prove more resilient under the looming strains the nations will face.
What I'd suggest is titled "Contraction & Convergence",
which was developed by the London-based Global Commons Institute,
and has been widely endorsed since its presentation to the UNFCCC in '92.
It proposes that science should provide the target peak of CO2-equiv ppmv within a specific date,
by which GW will be constrained within 2 degrees C of the global temperature prior to fossil energy dominance,
for the nations to agree to accept as the limitation on their GHG outputs.
This scientific advice implies an overall GHG budget for the period,
which in turn implies the scale of a declining global annual budget.
This is the Contraction of the framework's title.
Given the highly unequal national shares of emissions at present,
as well as the need for change in these shares to be gradual
(both to be negotiable and to avoid economic collapse)
it is proposed that all nations' emission rights should Converge
from the present GDP-based shares to per capita parity by an agreed date.
That is, a transition period moving toward national emission rights according to size of population.
With the emission rights being tradeable up to an agreed cap,
and the income earned (mostly by populous poorer nations)
being ring-fenced for sustainable energy development,
this arrangement could provide the most rapid transition from fossil fuel dependence
that is economically endurable.
The right to use the atmosphere's capacity to assimilate our GHGs
cannot, logically, be siezed by any nation, however mighty.
The atmosphere needs to be recognized, and managed, as a commons,
if we are going to see the resolution of the issue of Climate Destabilization.
To this end Contraction & Convergence offers a framework within which the nations can negotiate the key dates,
and so effectively the key rates of change.
It is partly this transparent simplicity that has led to C&C's endorsement
not only by the European Parliament,
but also by the African Group of Nations at the UNFCCC.
I would commend it to you Jason,
as a hugely preferable option to the hopeless dead-end of seeking pro-rata cuts.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink