Dan Lashof's Blog: Solving Global Warming

Solid at the Core: The Integrity of the Emission Limits in the American Power Act

2010-05-13T19:26:39Z

Yesterday David Doniger posted an overview based on NRDC’s “first read” of the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act discussion draft. Here I will delve more deeply into the environmental integrity of the core emission limits in the bill.

There is good news here. While the reductions fall well short of what the latest science suggests is needed, and we have some concerns about the price collar, offsets, and biomass (see below), the bill would establish, for the first time, effective national limits on global warming pollution. Those limits would get tighter every year and would drive investments in clean energy that create jobs and begin to end our dangerous addiction to oil.

The first read post summarizes the core emission limits in the bill:

Pollution Limits: The bill requires global warming pollution reductions for the sectors that are covered by emission limits, commencing in 2013 (sec. 2001, creating new Clean Air Act sec. 703):

Year Reduction Targets for Covered Sources (below 2005 levels)

2013 4.5%

2020                              17%

2030                              42%

2050                              83%

The program begins in 2013 by covering emissions from power plants and the combustion of gasoline and other petroleum products. Emissions from large industrial facilities and natural gas combustion are added in 2016, and from that point forward the emission limits would cover about 85% of total U.S. heat-trapping pollution output.

The effectiveness of these pollution limits depends on the provisions for (A) enforcement, (B) cost containment, (C) offsets, and (D) the treatment of biomass. I will discuss each of these in turn. The scientific review provisions are also important to drive needed improvements to the program over time, and I will conclude by looking at that section.

Before diving in, I want to comment on a disturbing tendency to judge a bill by its page count. Opponents of the American Power Act will undoubtedly decry the fact that it is 987 pages long. This may be the only fact that many of them get right about the bill. They will neglect to mention that these are legislative pages that are triple-spaced in 14 point font, a legacy of when legislation was marked up by hand. More importantly, they won’t bother to note that the core program rules (sections 721-729) run to only 57 legislative pages (pp. 310-366 of the discussion draft). The rest of the bill defines the offsets program, allowance allocations, competitiveness provisions, international activities, and complementary programs to deploy low-carbon technologies. Some of these provisions are expendable, and others undoubtedly could be streamlined, but by-and-large these extra pages are substantively important and politically essential. It is certainly possible to write a short climate bill, but I doubt that it is possible to enact one.

(A) Enforcement

A fixed number of “emissions allowances” is created for each year from 2013 through 2050, reflecting the annual emission reduction targets listed above (sec. 721). Each covered source must surrender one allowance for each ton of pollution they are responsible for. (A loophole for emissions from burning biomass needs to be closed; see below.)

Petroleum refiners and importers obtain the emission allowances they need in a slightly different way than other sources, but the result is environmentally equivalent. Producers and importers of gasoline and other petroleum fuels must purchase allowances from EPA on a quarterly basis to cover the emissions from the combustion of fuels they sold during that period. These allowances may not be traded or banked. Their price is pegged to the allowance auction price from the previous quarter (sec. 729). The environmental integrity of the emission limits is maintained because these allowances come out of the fixed pool established for each year.

Any covered source that emits a ton of greenhouse gases without holding a corresponding emission allowance has to pay a penalty equal to twice the market price for allowances, in addition to making good on each missing allowance (sec. 723).

(B) Cost Containment

The bill includes a price collar designed to limit emission allowance price volatility and ensure that allowance prices fall within a specified range. The upper bound of this price collar starts in 2013 at $25/ton and rises by 5 percent per year above the rate of inflation. The lower bound starts at $12/ton and increases by 3 percent per year above the rate of inflation.

The bill is designed to keep allowance prices within the collar without compromising its emission limits. For the low side this is easily accomplished by setting a minimum bid price in the allowance auction (similar to the way many eBay auctions are structured). To prevent prices from exceeding the upper bound, the bill creates a large reserve of emissions allowances (drawn from future year allocations and offsets) that can flow into the marketplace if unexpected carbon price spikes take place. Covered sources can obtain up to an additional 15 percent of their emissions in any year at the fixed upper bound price for that year. EPA is directed to replenish the reserve (if it is used at all) using the proceeds from allowance sales to purchase extra offsets. The reserve provides an extra layer of protection for consumers against unexpected cost increases and price volatility while preserving the integrity of the emission limits (Sec. 726).

If the reserve is tapped on a routine basis it is possible that it will eventually be depleted, creating pressure to simply mint additional allowances and undermine the integrity of the emission limits. While this is unlikely given the wealth of low-cost emission reduction and offset opportunities, the upper price collar should begin at a higher value (e.g., $30/ton) and escalate faster (e.g., 7% per year) to further minimize this risk. The minimum price should also escalate faster to give greater certainty to investors in clean energy.

EIA’s analysis of the House energy and climate bill underscores the importance of increasing the upper price collar faster. In its core case, EIA projects allowance prices of $20/ton in 2013 (adjusted to 2009$), which falls comfortably within the price collar. EIA projects, however, that allowance prices will increase by 7 percent per year. With the upper bound of the price collar increasing by only 5 percent per year, this means that the expected price would exceed the price collar starting in 2023.

(C) Offsets

Covered sources may use for compliance up to 2 billion tons per year of “offsets” (emissions reduced or carbon sequestered by sources not covered by the bill’s pollution limits). The bill establishes criteria, administered by EPA (or, for domestic farm and forest offsets, by the Department of Agriculture in consultation with EPA), to assure that offset credit is earned only for real and permanent actions that would not happen anyway to protect "the emission reduction integrity" of the overall bill. International forestry offset projects would be subject to criteria intended to ensure that they protect and enhance biodiversity. Starting in 2018, a company using international offsets must have 1.25 tons of those offsets to cover a ton of its own emissions – the extra quarter ton increases the total carbon pollution reduction achieved (Secs. 731-740). The proposal requires that EPA and USDA establish a process to accept and respond to public comments on the program rules, as well as procedures for public appeal and review of individual project approvals. It also allows for the removal of offset project categories which are not producing environmentally sound reductions.

Given the large volume off offsets that are allowed under this proposal their environmental integrity is critical to the overall performance of the bill. The bill includes a long list of project types which are supposed to be allowed to generate offsets. Many of these project types are untested and inherently difficult or impossible to implement in an environmentally sound manner. The list of presumptively allowed project types should be eliminated or shortened to include only the ones most likely to produce high quality reductions.

It is also essential to ensure that offset credits issued for sequestering carbon in soils or forests only remain valid as long as the carbon stays out of the atmosphere. Offset purchasers (not the project developer) should be ultimately responsible to make up tons lost through reversal of the carbon storage in agriculture and forestry projects (e.g. due to renewed plowing or tree cutting) if they are not replaced through a buffer. Responsibility to monitor and compensate for reversals should also extend well beyond the crediting period.

(D) Treatment of Biomass used for Energy

The draft bill creates a large loophole for the carbon emissions from producing and burning biomass, significantly eroding the bill’s carbon pollution reductions. Covered firms are allowed to ignore carbon emissions from burning “renewable biomass” on the assumption that they are completely counterbalanced by carbon uptake when biomass is grown (Sec. 722). In fact, carbon uptake falls short of combustion emissions for many fuel sources defined as renewable biomass, resulting in net carbon pollution. Not requiring allowances for this carbon pollution gives covered sources an economic incentive to switch to biomass, thus seriously degrading the bill’s stated carbon pollution reductions. Closing the biomass loophole is necessary to ensure the integrity of the bill's emissions targets.

The bill’s definition of “renewable biomass” also lacks critical environmental sourcing guidelines to protect forests and other sensitive ecosystems (Sec. 700). The definition provides absolutely no protection for private lands, inviting clearing or converting of sensitive wildlife habitat, old growth forests, and our last remaining native prairies. Partial protections are included for some federal lands, including roadless areas, and wilderness study areas. But many of the nation’s public forests remain exposed. A proper definition would protect areas that are high in biodiversity and that serve as large carbon storehouses, such as mature and old growth forests. It would also provide strong sustainability guidelines to ensure that bioenergy incentives do not drive increased carbon emissions, deforestation, forest degradation, or loss of wildlife habitat.

(E) Scientific Review

EPA in consultation with other agencies is tasked with making periodic reports to Congress on new scientific information, on whether the U.S. program is meeting its goals, and on whether domestic and international efforts are sufficient to avoid dangerous levels (e.g., greenhouse gas concentrations greater than 450 ppm CO2-equivalent, global average temperature increases greater than 3.6° F (2° C) over preindustrial levels) (Sec. 705). This provision would be stronger if it gave an explicit role to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to ensure that the best available science is fully considered. The scientific review provisions are important and we expect they will lead to deeper and faster emission cuts in the future.

Conclusion

The core emission limits in the American Power Act discussion draft are not perfect, but they are a solid starting point for Senate legislation. Improvements will be needed, both before and after this legislation is enacted. But make no mistake. National limits on global warming pollution that get tighter every year are a big…deal. We need them signed into law this year.

Change Shouldn't Be This Hard

2010-05-11T23:22:12Z

As Senators Kerry and Lieberman prepare to release the discussion draft of their comprehensive energy and climate bill tomorrow, NRDC is launching a powerful new national TV spot, called “Change,” that makes the case for moving to clean energy. This hard-hitting ad reflects both the importance of this issue and the high-stakes moment we are in.

The Gulf Coast oil disaster is a graphic reminder of how our dependence on fossil fuels can have grave consequences for our environment and our economy – and tragically cost human lives. This disaster comes just weeks after another energy-related disaster, the West Virginia coal mine explosion that left 29 people dead. Together, these two incidents have shined a national spotlight on the risks related to our dependence on fossil fuels, as NRDC’s President Frances Beinecke discussed earlier this week.

The ad includes powerful images from these recent disasters along with a spotlight on Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Why Ahmadinejad? Because, as I’ve written before, in addition to the economic and environmental benefits of moving to clean energy and cutting carbon pollution, passing comprehensive clean energy legislation could reduce Iran’s oil revenues by $100 million per day.

The ad reminds our elected officials in Washington that these issues are tied together and sends them a strong message: America is ready for real energy reform. The ad closes with the line “Its time for politicians to break their addiction so we can break ours. Its time for clean American energy.”

The ad tracks closely with two recent public opinion polls which confirm the strong, ongoing public support for action.

On Monday, NRDC released a new poll showing that the vast majority of Americans support action to quickly pass clean energy legislation. As my colleague, Wesley Warren wrote, this poll is a reflection that “the catastrophic Gulf oil spill has changed the politics of clean energy legislation. Americans want change and they want it now.” (Read his blog here)

Here are the topline findings:

Voters clearly want Congress to fast-track legislation that will require greater emphasis on renewable forms of energy and quickly move the country off our dependence on oil. Seven in ten (71%) support this move, with four in ten (44%) strongly in favor.
When asked about specific approaches to promoting renewable energy and reducing oil dependence, voters express strong support for passage of a clean energy and climate change bill, with more than six in ten agreeing the Senate should pass the bill and four in ten saying so strongly.
Nearly seven in ten voters also want to see a halt to any new offshore drilling until a full investigation of the accident is complete and safeguards are put in place.

These findings are consistent with another poll released this week by the Benenson Strategy Group. That poll found that Americans overwhelming support a comprehensive clean energy bill: 61% support a bill “that will limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy…”

Perhaps more surprising, the poll also found that Americans hold their elected officials accountable for the spill – even more than special interests or corporations. According to the poll memo:

When asked who they blame for our dependence on oil, voters are more likely to blame Washington politicians protecting special interests that fund their campaigns (33%) than big oil companies and lobbyists trying to protect their profits (27%).

The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent had a nice write-up of the poll. As Sargent notes, one conclusion of the poll is that “It behooves Dems to sort out a compromise energy reform package they can support and start moving on it now.”

This brings us back to the new legislative text coming tomorrow. Regardless of the details, Senators Kerry and Lieberman are to be commended for their hard work, determination, and leadership on this issue. They have succeeded in building a broad coalition and in moving forward in trying times.

Now it will be up to the Senate leadership— and the Administration – to take the next steps in responding to America’s renewed call for clean energy reform. Let’s make sure they hear the call and take swift action to begin moving America in a new direction on energy and climate policies.

We know that Americans are ready. And, as the ad says, “Change shouldn’t be this hard.”

How will Comprehensive Clean Energy and Climate Legislation Move Us Beyond Petroleum?

2010-05-10T18:14:04Z

In previous posts I have argued that it would be an historic mistake if our response to the disaster in the Gulf is limited to plugging the well and cleaning up the spill as best we can, and I have noted that the spill makes it more likely that Congress will enact some kind of energy legislation this year.

Now the question is: What will the legislation actually look like, and will it set us on a course to fundamentally change how we produce and consume energy so we can end our dependence on oil and other dirty and dangerous fossil fuels once and for all?

Faced with the need to show they are doing something in response to a crisis, the natural tendency of politicians is to pass legislation that does very little and then claim that it does very much. We just can’t afford to let that happen this time. As Thomas Friedman put it last week:

If we settle for just an incremental response to this crisis — a “Hey, that’s our democracy. What more can you expect?” — we’ll be sorry. You can’t fool Mother Nature. She knows when we’re just messing around. Mother Nature operates by her own iron laws. And if we violate them, there is no lobby or big donor to get us off the hook. No, what’s gone will be gone. What’s ruined will be ruined. What’s extinct will be extinct — and later, when we’re finally ready to stop messing around, it will be too late.

So what should be in any bill that is more than just messing around?

A comprehensive bill that limits carbon pollution would help end our oil addiction in three ways: (1) it would reduce demand for oil (by holding oil companies responsible for the carbon content of their products and by creating specific incentives for efficiency improvements), (2) it would spur innovation in cleaner alternatives (by giving investors certainty that the clean energy market will grow steadily), and (3) as we make the transition away from an oil-based transportation system, it would promote safer sources of oil from wells that have already been drilled on-shore in the U.S. (by creating an ample supply of CO2 captured from power plants and other sources that would be used for enhanced oil recovery).

The foundation of a comprehensive bill is limiting carbon pollution from all major sources; that will drive investments in clean energy and ensure that we transition away from dependence on oil and other fossil fuels. Clear, enforceable pollution standards that get tighter each year would provide certainty that can’t be achieved in any other way. That certainty is essential to protect the environment, but it is equally important for the economy. As Larry Summers, Director of the National Economic Council, pointed out last month, clear standards will allow businesses, both large and small, to make the long-term investments needed to produce the cleaner cars and cleaner fuels that will end our addiction to oil.

As important as they are, national carbon pollution limits will not cut oil demand fast enough by themselves. A recent analysis by EPA shows that we could reduce U.S. oil consumption by almost 7 million barrels per day compared to business-as-usual by 2030. By comparison we currently produce only 1.6 million barrels per day off the Gulf coast. According to EPA, over 80% of new cars and light trucks could be hybrids, plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles in the next two decades. Communities could be more livable and less oil dependent because of expanded transit and other alternatives to driving. Freight trucks could also save oil with dramatically more efficient drive-trains, better operations and shifting some freight to rail and ship.

We could achieve a 7 million barrel per day oil savings goal by combining overall pollution limits, further progress on vehicle efficiency and emissions standards beyond 2016, and specific oil savings policies to develop the infrastructure and the domestic manufacturing capacity to ensure that oil-based alternatives are affordable, convenient and made in America.

Policies such as:

Incentives to retool Detroit to produce more fuel efficient vehicles
Investments in electrification of the car and light duty truck fleet
Development of sustainable domestic biofuels made from biomass feedstocks that don’t compete with food production
Efficiency standards and substitution of natural gas for diesel fuel in medium and heavy-duty trucks
Expansion of public transportation options
Improvements in our air traffic control system and freight network that enhance efficiency

Meanwhile we can increase domestic production from existing onshore wells using carbon dioxide (CO2) captured from power plants and other industrial sources. The CO2 is injected to force additional oil out of fields that can no longer be tapped using conventional methods. After the enhanced oil recovery operation is complete the CO2 can be permanently secured in these depleted reservoirs. A recent analysis by the oil industry consulting firm Advanced Resources International shows that if the industry had access to ample supplies of CO2 it could produce an additional 3 million barrels of oil per day in this way by 2030.

Proponents of offshore drilling claim that we have to choose between endangering our precious coasts and relying on oil imports from dangerous regimes. It’s time to reject that false choice. Instead we can reduce our demand for oil and increase our supply from safer onshore fields. The Senate must pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation now so America can retake control of our energy situation.

Oil Spill Disaster Makes it Harder to Pass Clean Energy Bill…Or Easier

2010-05-05T14:06:04Z

Obviously an environmental disaster that graphically demonstrates the dangers of our fossil fuel dependence should makes it easier to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill. Well, not according to an article yesterday in Politico, which declared “spill leaves energy bill in trouble.”

The twisted logic, which makes sense only in Washington, is that expanded offshore drilling was a key sweetener in the legislation to attract Lindsey Graham and other swing votes. Now that such a provision is politically toxic, the theory goes, it will be impossible to assemble the 60-vote coalition needed to get any significant legislation through the Senate these days.

This approach never made any policy sense. Even if your primary interest in comprehensive energy legislation were increasing domestic oil production, we could get ten times as much oil, with much less risk, by tapping remaining oil in aging on-shore wells than we could be expanding offshore drilling. A process that would be strongly promoted by provisions to capture carbon dioxide from power plants and other industrial facilities.

The political logic was also always questionable. For every Senator who wanted to expand offshore drilling there was at least one who strongly opposed the idea. Now that the risks of offshore drilling are tragically plain for all to see expanding it makes no political sense whatsoever.

So does the spill make passing climate legislation harder? Quite the opposite says Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "I think it should spur it on. We have to take care of this issue,” Reid said yesterday according to E&E News (subscription required). Echoing a post by NRDC President Frances Beinecke, Reid cited the benefits of offshore wind compared to offshore oil and said “So I think rather than slow us up, I think it should expedite our doing energy legislation.”

Thomas Friedman weighed in this morning with a strong column calling on President Obama to seize the moment.

There is only one meaningful response to the horrific oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and that is for America to stop messing around when it comes to designing its energy and environmental future. The only meaningful response to this man-made disaster is a man-made energy bill that would finally put in place an American clean-energy infrastructure that would set our country on a real, long-term path to ending our addiction to oil. …

This oil spill is to the environment what the subprime mortgage mess was to the markets — both a wake-up call and an opportunity to galvanize a constituency for radical change that overcomes the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil.

Assembling an effective clean energy and climate bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate is still a huge challenge. But that challenge is far easier to overcome now that the oil spill has taken the option of inaction off the table.

Tell your senators to pass energy legislation that will prevent future oil spills.

Beyond Petroleum

2010-05-04T03:38:50Z

Not too long ago, BP was best known for its efforts to rebrand itself as Beyond Petroleum. Today BP is notorious because of its inability to stem the toxic tide of crude oil gushing from its ill-fated Deepwater Horizon drilling platform.

This disaster is a tragic reminder that offshore drilling is dirty and dangerous. It leaves no doubt that we need tighter regulation of where and how oil companies drill. But it would be an historic mistake if our response ends there.

BP must indeed plug the leak and be held responsible for the damage. And we must do everything we can to clean up the crude already killing wildlife and threatening to devastate our shores. But we must also, at long last, commit ourselves to ending our dependence on oil once and for all. Only by actually moving beyond petroleum can we ensure that this kind of environmental disaster never happens again.

The damage being done by the oil gushing out of the hole left by the Deepwater Horizon blowout and coating birds, killing turtles, decimating fisheries and destroying wetlands is visible for all to see. Had it been successfully produced by BP and burned for its energy, the oil would have been converted into carbon dioxide, which is colorless and odorless but still dangerous.

That’s because carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, driving changes in climate that threatens to cause the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs disappeared and increases in sea levels that threaten to inundate and destroy wetlands just as surely, and far more extensively, than the oil slick. In the ocean carbon dioxide becomes an acid that could make it impossible for oysters and crabs to make the shells they need to survive and reproduce.

How can we both protect ourselves from the oil oozing onto our shores and the carbon dioxide accumulating in our atmosphere?

The key is to set and enforce limits on carbon pollution from all major sources. And tighten those limits each year until our energy system has been transformed. In the process we will create millions of clean energy jobs that can’t be outsourced and we will end our dependence on oil from dangerous locations, whether those are deep water rigs or Middle East sheikdoms.

The House last year adopted a bill that would do just that. Yet Senate action remains stalled by Washington politics. The time to act is now. We can’t afford another oil-fueled disaster before we finally decide to move beyond petroleum.

EPA Climate Change Indicators Report Shows the Evidence of Global Warming All Around Us

2010-04-27T19:13:03Z

EPA released an achingly beautiful report today compiling 24 indicators of climate change. Starting with basic data on emissions and the rising concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere the report covers changes in the air, water, land, and ice that define our environment and that of all other living things.

I have seen most of these data before, but it’s extremely useful to have it all in one place and presented in a visually appealing—and appalling—fashion. Over the last two decades scientists have patiently assembled the pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle into a crystal clear picture of how our planet is changing. Professional climate science deniers will continue to focus on the handful of pieces that have been misplaced or lost under the sofa, but for everyone else there is no denying that this picture spells trouble.

Take, for example, the data on heavy rains (p.30), ocean heat content (p.36), glacier volume (p.48), and bird wintering ranges (p.66).

One heck of a conspiracy would be needed to get all of these completely independent data sets to point in the same direction.

LIVE: What's Next for Climate Policy, a Panel Discussion 7pm EDT Tuesday 4/20

2010-04-20T00:02:12Z

In my last post, I asked "Can the Senate pass a bill that delivers 2 million jobs, 2 billion tons and $2 trillion?" Tuesday night I'll be joining a panel of experts to discuss that question and more at George Washington University. The event will start with a one-on-one discussion with EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson followed by a panel discussion which will include questions from the live and online audience. You can submit questions online for the panel and vote for the best questions now using Google moderator. Watch a live stream of the event at 7pm EST on Planet Forward's website and chat live with other viewers. Or participate in the debate on Twitter, using the hash tag #pf420.

The panel includes Ana Unruh-Cohen, House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming; Jim Connaughton, Constellation Energy Group; Andrew Revkin, Dot Earth blog; and Kate Sheppard, Mother Jones.

As I discuss in this short video clip, we have made a lot of progress since the first Earth Day, but we can't rest on our laurels. This Earth Day we need more than a celebration, we need a clean energy revolution that adds 2 million clean energy jobs, cuts 2 billion tons of global warming pollution and saves 2 trillion dollars worth of oil imports.

If you’re in DC and would like to attend, you can RSVP.

This Earth Day we need more than a celebration. We need a clean energy revolution that creates 2 million jobs, cuts 2 billion tons, and saves 2 trillion dollars.

2010-04-19T21:09:01Z

On the fortieth anniversary of the first Earth Day there is much to celebrate: Our air is cleaner and our rivers no longer catch on fire. But we can’t rest on our laurels when millions of Americans still breathe unhealthy air and the concentration of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere continues to rise. The next step for our environment, our economy, and our security is a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that adds 2 million clean energy jobs, cuts pollution by 2 billion tons, and saves 2 trillion dollars worth of oil imports. That may sound like a tall order, but those benefits are within reach if Americans join together to demand action as they did on the first Earth Day.

Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman (KGL) have been working on a bipartisan proposal for months. They are now expected to unveil it on April 26th.

Here is what this legislation could do for our country:

Add 2 million jobs. Comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation will create jobs for three reasons. First, enacting legislation will end more than a decade of uncertainty about the direction of U.S. policy, allowing both big energy companies and entrepreneurial start-ups to invest with confidence that the recent growth in the clean energy market will only accelerate. Second, clean energy sources generate over three times as many jobs per dollar spent than traditional fossil energy supplies. Third, building a robust domestic clean energy market will position U.S. firms to compete effectively in the rapidly expanding global clean tech arena. A University of California study found that the energy and climate bill which passed the House in June could create as many as 1.9 million jobs by 2020. The Senate only needs to do slightly better to hit the 2 million job target.

Cut 2 billion tons. That’s the scale of global warming pollution reductions we need by 2020 to get on track to avoid the worst dangers from global warming. The only way to achieve this target is to set effective limits on carbon pollution from all major sources and tighten those limits each year. Strong complementary policies are also needed to accelerate energy efficiency improvements and ease the transition to a renewable energy economy. And supplemental policies are needed to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Both the House bill and the climate bill reported by the Senate Environment Committee last Fall meet this two billion ton test. How will KGL match up?

Save 2 trillion dollars. That’s the reduction in the amount of money we would send overseas to import oil over the next forty years if we enact an effective clean energy/climate bill according to NRDC’s analysis. A comprehensive bill would achieve this in three ways. First, setting an overall limit on oil pollution and requiring oil companies to obtain emission permits to cover the carbon content of their products would create an incentive to shift to cleaner fuels and more efficient ways to get around that gets stronger every year. Second, setting stronger standards to reduce vehicle tailpipe emissions would continue the historic progress codified in the clean car rules that were finalized on April 1st. Third, carbon dioxide captured from power plants and industrial facilities due to the pollution limits placed on those sources would be available to enhance oil production from aging oil fields in the United States without drilling in pristine areas. The Senate appears to be even more focused on increasing our energy security than the House, so there is reason for optimism on this score.

How will we know if the KGL proposal stacks up against these benchmarks? Detailed model runs will take some time, but there are four key aspects of the legislation to focus on to make a preliminary assessment.

Are the emission limits effective and free of loopholes? KGL have indicated that their goal is to reduce emissions 17% by 2020 and 80% be 2050, consistent with the commitments President Obama made in Copenhagen. The keys to actually achieving these targets are emission limits that comprehensively cover all major sources, strong quality controls for any offsets, and cost containment measures that maintain the effectiveness of the emission limits.

Does the new national emission reduction program build on existing state and federal efforts? During the eight long years of Bush administration inaction the States stepped into the void and have already begun implementing emission reduction programs. They also sued EPA, leading to the Supreme Court decisions declaring that the agency does indeed have authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act in its current form. EPA has issued vehicles standards and is steadily moving to exercise its authority to regulate stationary sources. While an effective new national program would become the primary driver of emission reductions it would be a mistake to eliminate the authority states and EPA currently have. As NRDC President Frances Beinecke asks in her recent post, would you fly in a plane that had no backup systems?

Does the bill include smart clean energy policies that will create jobs quickly and accelerate the transition to an efficient renewable energy economy? Energy efficiency is the fastest and cheapest way to reduce carbon pollution. And it creates jobs for Americans all across the country that can’t be outsourced. After all, a call center in India can’t put insulation in your attic, and it’s cheaper and faster to remanufacture old inefficient windows into superefficient ones on site (as Serious Materials is doing at the Empire State Building) than it is to import windows from China. Emission limits by themselves are not sufficient to overcome the barriers to energy efficiency and ensure a steadily expanding homegrown renewable energy market. The key here is complementary standards and incentives that help individuals and companies seize the wide array of available opportunities.

Would the bill create a foundation for an effective international agreement by demonstrating U.S. leadership, funding efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation, and helping the poorest countries adapt to impacts of global warming that can no longer be avoided? Efforts to forge an international agreement capable of preventing dangerous global warming are doomed without strong U.S. leadership, including a domestic law that reassures our partners that the President can deliver on his commitments and that the next administration can’t easily renege on them. Serious domestic emission reductions are critical, but adequate funding for international programs to curb deforestation and help poor countries deal with the consequences of global warming are also essential to seal the deal.

Can the Senate pass a bill that delivers 2 million jobs, 2 billion tons and $2 trillion? It won’t be pretty and it won’t be perfect, but if the public demands action there are good reasons for optimism. Now that the arduous battle for healthcare reform is over, President Obama is turning his attention to comprehensive energy reform. With his leadership, combined with the bipartisan efforts of Kerry, Graham and Lieberman and the commitment of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a clean energy revolution is within grasp.

Join me for a live event with Lisa Jackson, Andy Revkin and others, April 20 at 7pm EST to discuss what’s next for climate policy. For details and to submit a question, go to PlanetForward.org. Watch a live stream of the panel and conversation, join the chat and submit questions for the panel.

Do the Math: A Comprehensive Energy and Climate Policy Would Cut Iran’s Oil Revenue by $100 Million per Day

2010-04-12T14:23:21Z

The Wonk Room over at Think Progress posted an important piece on Friday calculating that comprehensive energy and climate legislation would reduce Iran’s petrodollar receipts by $1.8 trillion through 2050, an average of $100 million per day. That’s a huge benefit considering Iran’s role as a destabilizing force in the Middle East and as a sponsor of extremist groups around the world.

The basic logic is straightforward: Burning gasoline and other petroleum products inherently produces heat-trapping carbon dioxide. As a result, any reasonably effective program to reduce carbon pollution must reduce the demand for oil. Econ 1 tells us that lower demand means lower prices. And lower world oil prices means less revenue for Iran.

Still, $100 million per day is a pretty striking number, so before propagating it I thought it would be worth checking the math. That too turns out to be straightforward, and about as solid as it gets when it comes to projections related to the price of oil.

Iran produces just over 4 million barrels of oil per day, so a $100 million per day drop in revenue implies a $25 per barrel reduction in the price of oil compared to what it would be without a comprehensive energy and climate plan. The Wonk Room analysis relied on an MIT study which analyzed the effects of a U.S. climate program in the context of similar international action, and the numbers come from comparing the world oil price in MIT’s climate policy scenario to MIT’s reference scenario.

It’s not a good idea to rely on a single economic model, so I compared MIT’s results to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook analysis. IEA also produced a reference case and a climate policy case designed to stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm). There are many differences between the MIT and IEA models and their results. For one, the IEA analysis ends in 2030 whereas MIT’s extends through 2050. For another, the mix of biofuels and other low-carbon energy sources in their climate policy scenarios are quite different. Nonetheless, it turns out that IEA projects that the world oil price in its 450 ppm scenario will be $25 per barrel lower than in its reference scenario in 2030. This is the middle of MIT’s projection period, so IEA’s analysis provides strong corroboration for the estimate that Iran’s petrodollar revenues would fall by an average of $100 million per day due to a comprehensive energy and climate policy.

So go ahead and add that to the list of benefits from comprehensive climate and energy legislation: More jobs, less pollution, and $100 million per day fewer petrodollars for Iran to play with.

Larry Summers Serves Up Compelling Economic Case for Comprehensive Energy and Climate Legislation

2010-04-07T00:34:17Z

Larry Summers, the Director of the National Economic Council, used his luncheon speech at today’s Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook Conference to lay out a compelling case for comprehensive energy and climate legislation. The text of his remarks should be posted on the conference web site soon and will be worth a read as he positioned his points about energy and climate in the context of an expansive overview of the economic crisis and the Obama administration’s strategy to get the U.S. economy back on track.

In the meantime, here is an outline of the five key points he made about the economic importance of enacting comprehensive climate and energy legislation:

Enacting legislation will create demand and jobs in the short term, when the economy has idle labor and other economic resources that can be put to work building the foundation of a clean energy economy.
Enacting legislation will reduce uncertainty and increase confidence, spurring greater private sector investment.
Enacting legislation will result in a more efficient policy framework by cutting subsidies for dirty fossil fuels and increasing reliance on a market-based system to reduce emissions.
Enacting legislation will spur innovation, which is the key to our long-term prosperity.
Enacting legislation will strengthen America’s international competitive position by reducing our dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world and making the United States a leader in the technologies that will drive growth in the 21st Century.

Press coverage that I have seen predictably focuses on Summers’ response to a question about the political priority President Obama places on passing energy and climate legislation this year. His response

Going forward for the rest of this year a bipartisan energy solution is an absolutely crucial priority for the president

was certainly a tasty dessert, but the highly substantive main course should not be neglected.

Most Senators Don’t Think Climate Science is Murky

2010-03-12T03:20:49Z

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said today that she is putting on hold her effort to block EPA’s determination that carbon pollution is a danger to public health and the environment. This is a strong indication that she doesn’t think a majority of the Senate would vote for her resolution disapproving EPA’s endangerment finding.

Senator Murkowski has claimed that her resolution “has nothing to do with the science of global climate change.” But in fact the resolution would nullify EPA’s determination that carbon pollution is dangerous. So a vote for the resolution would be a vote to deny the overwhelming scientific record upon which EPA based its finding. That’s something most Senators don’t appear willing to do.

So despite all the noise in the blogosphere about stolen emails and botched footnotes, a majority of the Senate seems to understand that in the atmosphere carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

The question now is whether the Senate will act on that understanding by enacting comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that would cut carbon pollution, create clean energy jobs and enhance our security. President Obama convened a bipartisan group of 14 Senators at the White House this week and urged them to pass such a bill, giving the effort a significant lift.

Meanwhile efforts to prevent or delay long overdue actions under current law to cut global warming pollution will continue. Senator Murkowski said that she suspended her effort while she waits to see what becomes of a proposal from Senator Rockefeller to block EPA action for two years. That ill-advised effort (S.3072) would block any work under the Clean Air Act on standards to curb global warming pollution from power plants and other industrial sources for at least two years. The result would be an even longer delay because all preparatory work would also be brought to a halt.

Although Rockefeller’s approach does not directly deny the science of global warming (and unlike Murkowski’s resolution, doesn’t qualify for fast-track consideration in the Senate) it would be a huge step in the wrong direction. Given that most Senators appear to accept that carbon pollution poses a danger to public health and the environment, the way forward is to enact comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, not endorse or accept further delay.

Arctic Methane Emissions Sound Potential Climate Alarm

2010-03-08T22:17:52Z

It's been a busy couple months for climate deniers bent on spinning a handful of minor science errors into a web of distortion, misinformation and lies.

The Earth, unfortunately, isn't playing along.

In January we learned that the 2000s was the hottest decade on record—hotter than the 1990s, which was hotter than the 1980s.

Last week we learned that methane is seeping out of Arctic waters in significant amounts, loading up the atmosphere with a heat-trapping gas 30 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

We don't know whether this is a new development driven by Arctic warming or an ongoing natural process, though the extent of it has surprised the scientific community.

We do know, though, there's an enormous amount of methane frozen beneath the shallow waters of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, an area of nearly 800,000 square miles. And we know the release of even a small portion of this reservoir would be catastrophic.

"Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide," the NSF states in its March 4 press statement. "Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate change."

This section of the Arctic sea floor is releasing 7 million metric tons of methane a year—as much as is being emitted by the rest of the ocean—according to work done by an international research team led by scientists Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (see illustration). Their findings were published in the March 5 edition of Science magazine.

Arctic methane levels now average 1.85 parts per million, the highest level in 400,000 years, according to an excellent NSF fact sheet on the new methane findings.

Here's what's happening.

Over tens of thousands of years, methane has become trapped beneath the permafrost making up the Arctic seabed.

"But warming waters have begun to melt this subsea permafrost," the NSF fact sheet explains. "The result: destabilization and perforations in the permafrost that create pathways for releases of underlying methane."

When methane escapes from deep oceans, much of it mixes with oxygen in the water and is released at the surface as carbon dioxide. The East Siberian Arctic Shelf, however, is shallow - just 164 feet deep or less. So methane escaping from these waters rises without oxidizing and enters the atmosphere largely unchanged.

Thawing permafrost also creates new methane, by unlocking frozen plant remains that then decompose. I wrote previously about an excellent Scientific American article (subscription) which has pictures of this process occurring.

It's important to note this methane may have been seeping into the atmosphere at high levels from this area for decades. The key question is how much and how quickly will global warming accelerate the process. As Martin Heimann writes in Science:

Wetlands and permafrost soils, including the sub-sea permafrost under the Arctic Ocean, contain at least twice the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Release of a sizable fraction of this carbon as carbon dioxide and/or methane would lead to warmer atmospheric temperatures, causing yet more methane to be released. It would thus create a positive feedback loop that amplifies global warming.

How much will this amplification increase global warming? Katey Walter Anthony, the author of the Scientific American article, estimates this at 0.3 degrees Celsius from permafrost melting. As I wrote previously:

That may not sound like a lot, but the problem with positive feedback loops is that they amplify each other in a non-linear way. So this amount of extra warming from just this one process could spell catastrophe when combined with other positive feedback loops that are also already beginning to occur, such as increased carbon dioxide emissions from warmer soils and reduced carbon dioxide uptake by warmer seas.

So the bottom line is that we just don’t know how much of the methane currently seeping out of Siberia is due to global warming or how much worse it will become. And that is a key point: What we don’t know could hurt us. Rather than being a reason for complacency or delay, this kind of uncertainty is a strong reason for taking action to minimize the downside risk.

What's important now is that we continue to monitor this disturbing development to determine whether Arctic methane emissions are increasing. Even relatively small upticks could mean large impacts on future climate change.

Meanwhile, this is yet another indicator of how important it is that we do what we can to reduce climate change while we still have time to act. The way to do that is to curb carbon emissions. The time for action is long overdue.

Bob Deans contributed to this post

Are you now or have you ever been a climate scientist?

2010-03-01T19:13:57Z

Sen. James Inhofe, (R-Ok), the Senate’s chief spokesman for climate deniers, says so many outrageous things (see his recent interview on Grist) he’s all but lost his power to surprise.

Last week, though, the Oklahoma Republican crossed a line that I find shocking, attempting to discredit scientists through innuendo and the kind of intimidation that can have a chilling effect.

If Inhofe wants to call global warming a hoax, as he first did in 2003, that may be paranoid, but he has that right.

If he wants to say some stolen emails between a handful of climate scientists prove that he was right all along, PolitiFact rates the statement “false,” but it’s a nice debating point for him.

If he wants to have his grandchildren put a sign on their Igloo saying “Al Gore’s new home,” I guess that’s OK, though it does sadden me to see one of the great joys of childhood—a snow day—politicized.

But when Inhofe attempts to discredit respected scientists through innuendo and tries to intimidate them by threatening a criminal investigation, enough is enough.

It is time to say, “Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Last week Inhofe released a report by his Minority staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that represents a shocking new low in the public discourse on global warming.

The first chapter is unremarkable. It simply rehashes previously discussed accusations arising from the emails hacked from University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

In Chapter Two, though, the report shifts tone, setting the stage for guilt by association. The bulk of the chapter simply describes how the IPCC operates, but it includes a table called “CRU – IPCC CONNECTION.” The table lists a number of lead authors of the three most recent IPCC reports. The Inhofe report asserts that:

The chart below shows that the scientists at the center of the CRU scandal were participants in drafting IPCC assessment reports. Nearly all of the scientists worked at the highest levels of the IPCC, shaping and influencing the content of the assessment reports that form the international global warming ‘consensus.’

The only link to the CRU controversy for some of them appears to be that their names were mentioned in one of the emails.

For example, Inhofe’s report claims that Susan Solomon is “implicated in the CRU emails” and her name appears three times in the “CRU – IPCC CONNECTION” table. Solomon, a distinguished NOAA scientist, was indeed heavily involved in the IPCC report—she co-chaired Working Group I, which assessed the fundamental science of global warming. Her only link to the CRU emails presented in the Inhofe report is a February 2006 message from Keith Briffa to Jonathan Overpeck that mentions her in a single sentence. That sentence reads:

Of course this discussion now needs to go to the wider Chapter authorship, but do not let Susan [Solomon of NOAA] (or Mike [Michael Mann]) push you (us) beyond where we know is right.

Note that there is no evidence whatsoever that Solomon made any attempt to push Briffa and Overpeck to modify their views of the scientific issues that were discussed in the email. No matter, if your name is mentioned in one of the stolen emails you are “implicated.”

Chapter 3 is the most insidious as it is designed to intimidate scientists. It contains nothing of substance other than a summary of the Freedom of Information Act, White House openness directives, the False Statements Act and the False Claims Act. It then implies that the scientists mentioned in the emails may have violated these statutes and policies, but never presents any actual evidence that they have. The only actual accusation made in the report is that the emails “raise questions.” The authors go on to say they are investigating “whether any violations” occurred. The complete text of the innuendo is:

These and other issues raise questions about the lawful use of federal funds and potential ethical misconduct. Discussed below are brief descriptions of the statutes and regulations that the Minority Staff believe are implicated in this scandal. In our investigation, we are examining the emails and documents and determining whether any violations of these federal laws and policies occurred.

Have you no sense of decency Senator Inhofe, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

What We Know and How We Know It

2010-02-18T19:02:54Z

This post written with Bob Deans

The ongoing assault on climate science orchestrated by anti-regulation ideologues and supported by oil and coal companies has sown seeds of doubt by magnifying minor missteps by climate scientists and distorting the meaning of Washington DC’s “snowpocalypse.” None of this changes the facts about global warming. So what do we know, and how do we know it?

We know our climate is changing in ways that threaten us all. We know we can curb global warming by reducing carbon pollution. And we know that doing so will make our economy stronger and our country more secure.

That's what we know; here's how we know it.

The past decade was the hottest on record. For the years 2000-2009, the average global temperature was 57.9 degrees Fahrenheit, about 1 degree higher than the 20th-Century average, NOAA reported in January.

NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration not a political interest group. And when it comes to atmospheric conditions, there is no more credible institution anywhere in the world. Period.

Arctic ice is melting. A third of the perennial ice has vanished in just 30 years. Last September, Arctic sea ice fell to 2 million square miles - down from 3 million square miles in the summer of 1980. We've lost an area of sea ice equal to the entire United States east of the Mississippi according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

We know that from photographs taken by military and space program satellite that pass over the Arctic Circle 14 times every day.

Arctic sea ice is part of the world's natural refrigerator. It moderates global temperatures. It influences ocean currents. It is fundamental to world climate patterns.

We know, also, what is happening to deserts. They are spreading, fueling armed conflict and putting families on the move in places like Sudan, Kenya and Somalia.

In September, the CIA launched The Center on Climate Change and National Security, to assess the national security risks posed to the United States by widening desertification; rising sea levels; population shifts and increasing competition for food, land and fresh water.

And just this month, in its Quadrennial Defense Review, a seminal strategic document, the Defense Department called climate change "an accelerant of instability" that could have "significant geopolitical impacts" that "may spark or exacerbate future conflicts."

In 1989, then-president George H.W. Bush asked two important questions about climate change: what do we know, and how do we know it?

To answer those questions, NOAA, NASA, the Pentagon, the National Science Foundation, the Department of State and eight other federal agencies mounted one of the most exhaustive endeavors in the history of scientific inquiry, a 20-year study conducted over the course of four administrations - two Republican and two Democratic.

The results were made public last June, in a comprehensive report.

This is how it begins:

Observations show that the warming of the climate is unequivocal.

Unequivocal. Leaving no doubt, open to no misunderstanding. That's what unequivocal means.

The global warming over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases,

the report continues.

These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices and other activities.

It doesn't get any more definitive than that.

Our planet is warming. Burning fossil fuels is the primary cause.

We can curb the widening destruction it brings by passing comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation.

In recent months, big oil and other opponents of effective legislation have spent scores of millions of dollars trying to defeat it. They have seized on some stolen e-mails from a British university and oversights found amid climate data published by the International Panel on Climate Change to try to undercut the case for change.

Climate deniers have spent more than two years going through the 2007 IPCC report - some 2,800 pages long. So far they have found perhaps two errors and a couple of botched citations, none of which affect the essential findings about climate change.

Certainly science must be scrutinized - rigorously - and subjected to constant reassessment and review.

We must ask ourselves, with vigilance: what do we know, and how do we know it?

When it comes to the fundamentals of climate change, those questions have been asked and answered.

Now it's time to ask something more.

Are we prepared to seize the opportunity for a generation of Americans to go to work leading this country, and the world, into a future of clean and sustainable energy? Or will we remain forever shackled to the outdated energy habits of the past at the expense of the opportunities of tomorrow?

Are we content to get six out of every ten gallons of our oil from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela? Or is it time at last to find better ways to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend every year on foreign oil?

Are we going to address a widening scourge that threatens us all? Or will we allow the same old monied interests to thwart needed change and hold us on a course to increasing environmental ruin?

It's time for answers to those questions now. It's time we passed comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that will put Americans back to work, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and create a healthier future for our children.

Obama's 2011 Budget Calls for Clean Energy and Climate Legislation, Cuts in Fossil Fuel Subsidies

2010-02-02T18:29:36Z

The federal budget submitted by the president to Congress each year provides the best overall roadmap of the administration’s priorities. President Obama’s 2011 budget, released yesterday, is no exception. It builds on the message he delivered in his State of the Union address with a clear call for Congress to enact comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation and follows up on international commitments to cut fossil fuel subsidies and increase support to help poor countries deal with the consequences of climate change.

The budget demonstrates priorities in three basic ways: where it increases investments; where it cuts spending and tax breaks; and what policy changes it calls for. My colleague Cai Steger described the significant increases in clean energy investments included in the budget. Here I will focus on the other two categories.

Let’s start with the climate policy assumption embedded in the budget. This shows up on page 159 of the budget summary as a line item called “Climate policy (deficit-neutral reserve)” with no numbers associated with it. As the all-important footnote 4 (found on p.171) explains, this is because comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation is assumed to pay for itself. In fact, this is one of the major benefits of taking a comprehensive approach—steady investments in essential clean energy technologies are fully paid for by polluters because they must purchase permits to comply with the pollution cap. The key administration fact sheet on “creating the clean energy economy of tomorrow” provides a pretty clear explanation:

Undertake a Comprehensive Approach to Transform our Energy Supply and Slow Climate Change. The Administration will work to enact and implement a comprehensive market-based policy that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 percent in 2020 and more than 80 percent by 2050. Businesses will have the flexibility to seek out the most profitable and least costly ways of achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions, from making investments in energy efficiency and low-carbon or zero-carbon fuels to offsetting their emissions through agricultural activities that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and developing export markets for American clean energy technologies through investments in emission offset activities abroad. The policy will address the needs of vulnerable families, communities, and businesses to facilitate the transition to a clean energy economy. To prepare for the reduction in emissions, the Government will invest in climate registries to account for greenhouse gas emissions; implement regulations that improve energy efficiency, lower energy bills, and reduce emissions; plan for the effects of a changing climate in the stewardship of our natural resources; and undertake the research and development of next-generation energy technologies that will promote our energy and climate security.

Now what about those cuts in fossil fuel subsidies? The budget calls for cutting 12 tax breaks for oil, coal, and gas producers, trimming the deficit by $36 billion over ten years. The cuts are detailed in the “Terminations, Reductions, and Savings” document on p. 16 and p. 39. By far the largest savings would come from repealing expensing of intangible drilling costs, repealing percentage depletion allowances for oil and gas wells, and eliminating the domestic manufacturing tax deduction for oil and gas companies. Eliminating these subsidies for some of the world’s richest companies would seem like a no brainer, but you can bet that oil company lobbyists will be fighting these reforms tooth and nail, whenever they take a break from fighting comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation.