Joe Romm at Climate Progress reports on an American emissions trading bill that’s just been released in draft form by the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce committee.
The key bits are summarized here. The headline part is an emissions trading scheme, with a 20% cut in 2005 emission levels by 2020 and 83% cuts by 2050. Around 15% of revenue is used to compensate trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries – Big Carbon’s getting their pound of flesh in the USA, too – but the summary doesn’t explain how those rebates are allocated. There’s a renewable energy target, too, similar to the Australian MRET.
Like Australia, this bill proposes to allow the purchase of offsets overseas, though there’s a catch – five tonnes of offsets are only equivalent to four tonnes of permits. That said, those cheap offsets from Indonesian and Papua New Guinean forests might just get a lot more expensive if American companies are buying them left, right, and center.
Elsewhere [dk]: John Quiggin, Christine Milne [h/t: Tim Hollo]
what does an 83% reduction translate into as parts per million equivalent?
I’m guessing about 450 – 500?
From Joe Romm:
Interesting.
Also the prominence of energy efficiency.
What’s always struck me about the Aus debate is that it’s so consistently been framed arse backwards compared to the US. In the US it’s all about who’s getting a piece of the future green economy. In Australia, it’s ‘woahhh, slow down there, don’t want to lose any jobs’ kinda emo.
Who wants to bet that the Republicans in congress will be arguing that the US shouldn’t be cutting more than other developed nations, particularly Australia?
If it looks like this will pass (and who knows if it will) it will strengthen the case for blocking our own version on the basis that the world will force something better on us.
Good to see a proper nation upping the ante.
I see the 5% cut much as I see our embarassing, loser-Jack flag: an admission of basic piss-weakness. We proudly declare that we need other nations to lead us.
That said, Im glad the days of complete and utter capitulation under the Libs are over. But seriously – ALP – look how embarassing this 5% crap is getting already.
Lefty E, this US cut is 20% only against 2005 levels. With respect to 1990 levels (which is how these things are usually calibrated), it’s merely a restoration of 1990 levels of emission. So it’s a “0%” cut by the same measure according to which Australia’s is 5-to-15%.
I missed that sleight of hand Mitchell. Comes w being too busy to read properly.
We’re still pissweak tho
That’s beyond dispute.
I like your comment dk – yeah, if only we hadnt made the steam engine and hand-type setting redundant, all those jobs wouldnt have been LOST!
Some industries become REDUNDANT folks – always have. Welcome to a thing called ‘progress’.
I have no problem with the 5 percent bottom target – if the world can’t agree, then Australia is just as flucked as the rest of ‘em. It’s the upper bound that is just indefensible, on many grounds (science, equity, as a negotiating tactic).
I’d like to know if this Bill is currently broadly supported, or is posturing – how realistic is its passage?
wilful, I’m not up to date on US politics in this area, but I suspect the bill won’t pass unless Chindia sign up to specific targets.
As to whether it is targeting 450-500, whatever they have in mind it probably won’t be adequate. Last I heard 70% of the increase in emissions was coming from developing countries.
Another factor that needs to be taken into account is the per capita emissions. The different demographic trends seem to make this a much more ambitious target then the EUs 60% by 2050. So in terms of the existing (entirely inadequate) targets around, this one seems quite competitive at the longer end.
except Australias cuts are from 2000 levels, so the US cuts dont look too bad compared to them. Also does anyone know what these equate to in per capita terms taking into account projected population changes in the next decade?
Ah, two slights of hand! Doesnt anyone operate from 1990 levels?
Oh hang on, right: that was for Kyoto countries.
Australia’s 1990 and 2000 levels are almost identical – this is not a conn.
the fact that they’re the same because of reduced Queensland land clearing that should have happened anyway, well that’s a conn, but a lower order one.
Canada just voted for 25% by 2020.
Those rainforest credits just got a whole lot more expensive… But really, without them turning around the tar sands operations it’s going to take an awful lot of dodgy accounting.
From memory Canada’s current emissions are about 38% above 1990, so the targets specified would be a super effort.
But don’t crack open the champagne just yet. Can anyone tell me who’s running the joint?
The link says that that the bill was brought forward by the New Democrat Party. It seems the Conservative Party voted solidly against it.
Last I heard Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper was still PM and representing Canada at the G-20. So can anyone tell me who’s running the joint these days?
Harper called an election in October last year. He needed 155 seats for a majority and only got 143. The three opposition parties, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois have 163 between them. On 1 December 2008 they signed a coalition agreement and advised the Gov General that they would have the numbers when parliament met. I believe that Harper’s response was to say that the move was “undemocratic” and then prorogued parliament at the beginning of the session to reconvene for the presentation of the budget in late January.
That’s where I lost the thread of the story.
It seems to me that either Harper has found a way of staying in power, or the ‘left’ coalition has fallen apart. If the Conservatives are still running the joint it seems unlikely that they would intend doing anything about it. Harper himself, I understand, is a denialist.
Mitchell and LeftyE, that’s not quite the case, actually, with the sleight of hand.
In fact, US emissions in 2005 were lower than they were in 2000, thanks to the tanking of their economy. So the 20% cut below 2005 levels (30% including the massive investment in REDD credits for avoided deforestation) is in fact 21/31% below 2000 levels. That is massively in front of Australia’s 5% offer. And it must be compared to the 5%, not the 15%, because our 5% includes REDD credits under it, instead of additional to it. This is an unconditional offer along the lines of the 5%.
Regarding 1990 levels, in fact the 20% below 2005 equals about 10% below 1990, not 0%. Not sure where you got that figure from, Mitchell. So the 30% below 2005 is pushing 20% below 1990. Comparing to 4% below 1990 for Australia.
Clearly, this is still nowhere near enough to get the world below 450ppn, but as a first effective unconditional offer from the US pre Copenhagen, it is a damn good sign!
See Christine Milne’s release here.
Brian, I am as baffled as you by the Canadian story. Don’t get it at all. Did Harper lose support from key allies on this? If it’s passed by an opposition coalition including key Harper allies, will the Harper Adminsitration take any notice? Can it avoid doing so? I am puzzled…
Tim Hollo
Not sure where you got your US emissions data from. This from the US DoE web site:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
1990 – 6241.8 Mt CO2-e
2000 – 7075 Mt CO2-e
2005 – 7256.9 Mt CO2-e
2005 figures are 116% 1990 figures. 20% reduction on 2005 figures means an emissions target of 5805.52 or a 6.2% reduction on 1990 figures (or roughly ball park with the CPRS low target.
Dave55 – how odd. I was using the official US EPA greenhouse inventory, which is their report to the UNFCCC. You can find it here at table 2-1. The numbers there do not square at all with the DOE numbers.
1990 – 5202 MT CO2e
2000 – 6227 MT CO2e
2005 – 5957 MT CO2e
I stand by my numbers, even if I committed the sin of rounding up. 20% below 2005 is a bit over 8% below 1990, but 30% below 2005 is damn close to 20% below 1990, as I said.
And, as I said, you cannot compare the 20% US cuts to the 5% Australian cuts, because our 5% includes the REDD credits that the US is making additional. If you want to compare the numbers, you have to use the 30% cut against our 5%, which turns out to be 19.8% to 4%.
Quiggin :
“That is massively in front of Australia’s 5% offer.”
Thanks Tim…
Which I believe was my intial point! We’re pissweak!
In the US it’s all about who’s getting a piece of the future green economy. In Australia, it’s ‘woahhh, slow down there, don’t want to lose any jobs’
Yes dk.au, that’s what’s driving me to despair in a nutshell. The only thing I’d quibble with is the comparatively flippant way you’ve summed it up. This is a profound failure by our leaders, and I believe exposes a critical flaw in Australia’s psyche as a nation-state. We consistently produce and attract citizens of great ingenuity, forward-focus and bright optimism, shrewd and capable and inventive. We do not elect this in our leaders, and we are about to suffer not just the consequences of significant global warming, but also being left scrambling with only ourselves to blame as other nations grasp the opportunities offered. On top of that we’re one of the most exposed nations in terms of vulnerability to climate change impacts.
It just beggars belief and on certain days just makes me ragingly misanthropic. Why are we so damn stupid in terms of political leadership? God knows if the USA can craft a vision that necessarily involves either co-opting or defeating incredibly powerful CC naysayer lobbyists and vested interests, why can’t we?
Tim,
Sorry, The DOE figures seem to be actual emissions and don’t take into account LULUCF credits. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
Your figures are correct for net emissions.
Your point is right about REDD credits although I’m not as critical of REDD credits provided they are well audited.
Tim @ 15, my take is that the bill was put forward by the majority opposition and opposed to a person by the minority government. So it means buggerall while the minority Harper government has its hands on the levers of power. Why they haven’t tipped the sod out is what has me confused.
Harper’s objection to the coalition was that the three parties had not gone to the people in the election as a coalition but as three separate parties which were known to fight like Kilkenny cats. So maybe he persuaded the Governor General that a majority ‘no confidence’ vote in the house doesn’t have any significance.
Or for some reason the planned ‘no confidence’ motion didn’t happen.
When I used figures from cait.wri.org (including all greenhouse gases, but not LULUCF) I obtained:
2005 – 7,098.0
2000 – 6,992.0
1990 – 6,105.2
This has a 20% reduction below 2005 levels as 5678 Mt CO2-e, which is 7% less than the figure for 1990. In the Kyoto negotiations, the US agreed to a 7% reduction beyond its 1990 emissions for its Kyoto commitment period. So the US target is achieve its Kyoto target 10 years later.
One bit of silver lining is that the US legislation also provides for reducing international deforestation emissions by equivalent to 10% of the US’s 2005 emissions. This is additional to the 20% reduction.
Another bit of silver lining is that the US legislation specifies this target as an upper bound of US emissions, and does not say anything about lower bounds (as far as I am aware). This is different to the CPRS, where lower bounds of emission levels can be specified by the legislation. The lower bound for Australia is likely to by a 15% reduction below 2000 levels. In other words, Australia would be refusing to make emission reductions beyond 15% no matter what the rest of the world does. This is what I believe is the worst aspect of the CPRS legislation.
Another good thing about the US legislation is that the emission reductions are better than what was stated before the election by the Obama-Biden team: to return to 1990 levels by 2020. The fact that the US is willing to go beyond that weak target is very good news.
Funny – the Republicans resorting to lying about it already, according to Grist
I am still confused about the precise nature of the American and Canadian policies, but I would think that one consequence for Australia is that the passage of the CPRS (in some form, possibly amended) has become that much more likely. When Turnbull came out with his Green Carbon Initiative, that was when I first thought the CPRS would definitely get through, albeit in modified form after long and bitter negotiations. But then, just a month ago it became fashionable to speculate that the GFC would cause the launch of an Australian ETS to be postponed indefinitely, that Rudd would be secretly relieved to have the scheme killed in the Senate, and so on. That’s not looking too plausible today.