The National Academy of Sciences is Also Clear about the Urgent Need to Cut Carbon Pollution

Yesterday I wrote about the National Academy of Sciences’ very clear findings on the fundamental science of climate change. Today I want to highlight the Academy’s equally clear conclusion that urgent action is needed to cut U.S. emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gas pollutants.

The Academy released three reports yesterday that are the bulk of its comprehensive America’s Climate Choices study. My previous post drew from the volume on “Advancing the Science of Climate Change.” Today’s post is based on “Limiting the Magnitude of Climate Change.” One of my colleagues will address the third volume, “Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change” in the near future.

The conclusions of the “Limiting” report are strikingly clear. Scientists are habitually very cautious about making policy recommendations, but in this case Congress asked the Academy to “make recommendations regarding what steps must be taken and what strategies must be adopted in response to global climate change…” Its response was unambiguous:

We thus conclude that there is an urgent need for U.S. action to reduce GHG emissions.

The report uses the term “urgent” seven times and is very specific about the kind of action it recommends:

Global temperature and GHG concentration targets are needed to help guide long-term global action. Domestic policy, however, requires goals that are more directly linked to outcomes that can be measured and affected by domestic action. The Panel thus recommends that the U.S. policy goal be stated as a quantitative limit on domestic GHG emissions over a specified time period – in other words, a GHG emissions budget.

 The report suggests that a “representative” range of 170-200 gigatons CO2-equivalent would be a reasonable emissions budget for the United States for the period 2012-2050. For those who don’t speak gigatons of cumulative emissions, the Academy helpfully translates that into a reduction in annual emissions of 80 percent (for the 170 gigaton budget) to 50 percent (for the 200 gigaton budget) by 2050.

 The report goes further to recommend a policy framework to achieve these reductions by adopting an economy-wide system to limit emissions, and to complement that system with a portfolio of policies to:

• realize the practical potential for near-term emissions reductions through energy efficiency and low-emission energy sources in the electric and transportation sectors;
• establish the technical and economic feasibility of carbon capture and storage and new generation nuclear technologies;
• accelerate the retirement, retrofitting or replacement of GHG emission-intensive infrastructure.

The report cautions that equity implications need to be considered in designing policies.

Finally, it also recommends a significant boost in research to expand the menu of low-carbon technology options.

While the panel stopped short of evaluating any specific legislative proposals, these recommendations are consistent with the comprehensive energy and climate bill that the House passed last year as well as the American Power Act (APA) recently proposed by Senators Kerry and Lieberman.

Let’s take each of these recommendations in turn in comparison to the features of the APA. (See our first read for a more complete review of the APA):

Emissions budget: The APA sets annual emission limits from 2013 through 2050 and allows banking and limited borrowing of emission allowances, which effectively turn these limits into an overall budget for that period as recommended by the Academy. The numbers work out to fall squarely into the “representative” range suggested by the Academy (with the exact total dependent on what happens with the 15 percent of total heat-trapping emissions that are not covered by specific limits in the bill).

Adopt an economy-wide mechanism to implement the emissions budget: The APA sets annual emission limits which are enforced by requiring polluters to obtain emission allowances. The price of emission allowances will be determined by supply (which is limited) and demand (which will be equal to the emissions from covered sources). This system effectively puts a price on carbon pollution covering 85% of total U.S. emissions.

Realize the potential for near-term reductions: The APA includes some important provisions to enhance energy efficiency and achieve emission reductions from the transportation sector, but it definitely could do much more to fully realize the cost-effective potential to increase energy efficiency and expand electricity generation from renewable energy sources.

Establish the feasibility of carbon capture and storage and nuclear: The APA invests heavily to achieve these goals and in facts goes way overboard on nuclear power as discussed here.

Accelerate the replacement of high-emissions infrastructure: The APA retains important EPA authority to set performance standards for existing coal-fired power plants which could help with this goal, but more could be done to advance this objective. 

Consider potential equity implications: The APA includes strong consumer protections and has specific provisions to protect low-income families that have been favorably received by leading low-income advocates.

Create new technology choices by investing in research: The APA has provisions to expand research on low-carbon technologies but the investment is relatively modest and should be enhanced.

America’s most authoritative scientific organization could not have been more clear. Now it’s time for the Senate to listen.

Comments