Abstract
Congress needs to pass strong laws to reduce carbon emissions, yet an emissions cap should be only one part of the u.S. strategy.
In late March, a group of prominent climate scientists wrote to congressional leaders with recommendations regarding U.S. climate change policy. The group, which included Stephen Schneider, a member of the Bulletin's Science and Security Board, implored Congress to base its decisions on the latest scientific findings such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The scientists also suggested several goals that Congress should strive toward as it prepares to debate legislation aimed at capping carbon dioxide emissions. They wrote: “It is essential that we put in place appropriate incentives for development, acquisition, deployment, and diffusion of low-carbon technologies and more efficient end uses of energy…. These incentives may be embodied in carbon cap-and-trade legislation, but they will also need to be integrated into broader development policies, regulations, standards, tax policy, financial incentives, voluntary agreements, international treaties, and research, development, and demonstration project funding.”
Indeed, to have even a chance of reducing global carbon emissions and thus mitigating the impact of climate change requires nothing short of a restructuring of the way societies think about energy, economic development, the environment, and foreign relations. In the United States, emissions reductions will constitute only a part of this effort.
President Barack Obama calls for comprehensive cap-and-trade legislation as part of a plan to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050, and Congress is considering several bills that would move in this direction. Obama also proposes selling 100 percent of emission allowances up-front as part of the cap-and-trade system. This is the right tack to take, despite the concerns of emitters. Congress needs to ensure that any such legislation provides adequate revenue to support research and development of low-carbon energy technology. This argument should be familiar to proponents of a carbon tax, who propose that such a tax ensure a set cost for emitters and a set stream of revenue for government research and development programs. Selling all allowances up front will create an additional economic burden for emitters and consumers who are already struggling under the weight of the global recession. These costs, however, will be more palatable if seen in the context of the necessary realignment of national priorities. By taking into account the economic, public health, environmental, and international impact of energy investments, national leaders will be able to spur sustainable growth and wider social equality.
As essential as this stream of revenue is, however, Congress and the president need to ensure that any U.S. climate change legislation contributes substantially to reductions described by the IPCC in its latest assessment. For the United States, this will require emission reductions of at least 35 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, according to Schneider and his colleagues. To hit this mark, Washington must incorporate the lessons learned about creating emission reductions from the flawed implementation of the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanisms and other early efforts to buy and trade emission allowances: reductions need to be sustained, new, and verifiable–and not simply a means to monetize current practices. The United States has waited so long to set emission targets that, to be effective and make up for lost time, it must set the appropriate standards for reductions the first time around. Most importantly, the system needs a strong mechanism to ensure compliance.
To complement cap-and-trade, Congress should begin setting improved performance standards for electric power generation, buildings, appliances, and cars. By adopting some of the very good suggested standards already provided by scientists, Congress will effectively begin to acknowledge the many ways consumers and industry can contribute to reducing emissions.
U.S. engagement in agreements that coordinate international aims with U.S. efforts is also essential. The Obama administration should work with Congress to ensure U.S. participation later this year in the development of a follow-on agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. Washington's participation in the Copenhagen talks will signal renewed interest in addressing climate change, and will help to bring other large emitters to the table. Without the effective efforts of major countries, no international pacts will begin to stabilize the climate.
Yet even global coordination of emission reductions will not be enough to address the climate crisis. Nations need to further embed the idea that humans are environmental stewards into the full range of their policies–from foreign aid to technology transfer. In this context, any forthcoming U.S. carbon legislation should be seen as only a single step in a multifaceted global mitigation strategy.