Summary: The United States is once again engaged in the international effort to combat climate change, but significant domestic political obstacles are limiting the degree to which the Administration and Congress can meet both international expectations and scientific realities. While positive first steps have been made, including the passage of major climate legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, there is a clear understanding in the climate change community that the U.S. is not there yet, and that there is a lot of work to do if any hope of agreement on a global deal on climate change is to materialize by the end of the year in Copenhagen [1].
Jump to: Mitigation, Reducing Emissions, Preventing Deforestation, Adaptation, Conclusion
Introduction: Six months into the Obama administration, early promises of U.S. leadership on climate change face considerable obstacles. Above all, the Administration is seeking to avoid a repeat of the Clinton Administration's failure in 1997, which was to sign an international climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, only to have the U.S. Congress fail to ratify it [2]. As such, pressure is building for Congress to conclude a U.S. climate and energy bill in advance of December's UN meeting in Copenhagen [1], where countries hope to conclude a new international climate agreement. The House has passed a bill [3] that while not ideal, is generally acceptable to the environmental community as a first step. Many organizations are calling on the Senate to strengthen the bill, but that will be an uphill battle, and a final version of the legislation may not materialize in time for Copenhagen. The substance of this legislation will either allow, or not allow, the Administration to credibly meet international needs and expectations. However, the financial crisis and a fractured Congress are making progress difficult - resulting in policy proposals on emissions reductions and adaptation assistance that may be inadequate in the context of international negotiations. Climate advocates are working feverishly, with Congress and the Administration, to change this.
The 2 Key Objectives: Mitigation and Adaptation: Efforts to address climate change hinge on two complementary objectives: mitigating climate change [4] (i.e. minimizing the extent of climate change through cutting greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the ecosystem's ability to absorb, or capture, those emissions), and adapting to climate change [5] (i.e. minimizing the vulnerability of human and natural systems to actual, or expected, effects of climate change). Both objectives emerged as clear international priorities from the UNFCCC Bali Climate Conference in late 2007 [6].
Mitigation: Minimizing the extent of climate change has been the primary focus of advocates for quite some time. While mitigation proposals are varied and complex, they primarily center around reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.
Key mitigation objectives. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC [7]), which the United States is a party to, details two critical policy objectives for mitigating, or minimizing, the extent of climate change. These are reducing emissions [7], and absorbing those emissions through preventing deforestation and expanding forests [7]. Climate policy advocates in the United States have, for the most part, committed themselves to promoting U.S. leadership on these two mitigation objectives. Thus far, progress in the U.S. on emissions reductions has been slow (but not trivial), while movement on preventing deforestation has thus far received ambitious support in Congress.
By how much? There are key long term, and short term goals being discussed at home and abroad. In the long term, the UNFCC [8], the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [9], the highly influential Stern Review [10], and key U.S.-based coalitions, campaigns and NGOs, including the Energy Action Coalition [11], 1Sky [12], NWF [13], and NRDC [14], have stated that the scale of the climate change problem will require cutting emissions by at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In the short term, the IPCC, based on recent science [15], has called on developed countries to cut emissions by "25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020." A draft treaty [16] prepared by international NGOs reiterates that objective, and most U.S. advocates have embraced it as necessary. In addition, the European Union is considering 30% reductions below 1990 levels by 2020 if others follow suit, and a bloc of developing countries have demanded [17]40-60% reductions [17] by 2020 from their developed country partners.
How do we get there? There have been myriad proposals for how the U.S. could most effectively reduce emissions to meet international objectives. The proposals that have received the greatest amount of traction are those that call for national emissions reductions targets, strengthened energy efficiency standards, steeper regulation for coal-fired plants, a significant switch to renewable energy, primarily through domestic and international investments in those technologies, and U.S. leadership, both by example and through multilateral and bilateral engagement, in encouraging mitigation commitments from other key polluters - especially China.
Where are we now? The United States has gone from being perceived as a serious laggard in the development of emissions reductions policies, to a position of potential leadership on the issue in international negotiations. But while the Obama Administration has made bold and encouraging commitments, it is not yet clear that current Presidential or Congressional initiatives will be sufficient for meeting international expectations. The following is a breakdown on progress.
Emissions reduction targets: While President Obama committed to capping emissions by 83% below 1990 levels by 2050 in his budget blueprint [18], the Administration has not yet made specific commitments to emissions targets in international negotiations - preferring to wait for Congress to produce its own. Instead, the Administration has reiterated previously stated low-end goals [19] (1990 levels by 2020), and spent much of its energy during the recent Bonn negotiations on securing commitments from China [20] - whose unwillingness to agree to binding reductions has helped suppress support for U.S. action in Congress.
On the Congressional side, a significant piece of climate legislation [21] (dubbed Waxman-Markey) passed the House of Representatives on June 27 by a close vote of 219 to 212. An analysis by 1Sky [22] demonstrates that the legislation as written could commit the U.S. to reducing emissions at least 71% below 1990 levels by 2050, and 18% below 1990 levels by 2020. This includes emissions reductions resulting from a new cap-and-trade system, proposed energy efficiency standards, avoided deforestation, and small amounts from "carbon offsets." However, other analyses show [23] that despite the targets, certain key sections of the bill (especially the 'offset' provisions), could result in as little as 2% reductions from current levels by 2020. This debate involves both the 'auctioning,' or the giving away for free, of tradeable 'pollution permits' to industries, and the extensive (and worrying) measures on 'carbon offsets.' [24] The Center for American Progress [25], Grist [26], and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network [27] have also posted extensive analyses of these key parts of the bill. While the 2050 target is broadly consistent with calls from the IPCC, the broader international community, and key collaborative climate campaigns [12] in the U.S [12], the 2020 objectives fall short [28], even in the most optimistic analyses. The provisions in the bill are still subject to change, however, especially as the Senate has yet to produce its own version [29]. Overall, while considerable disagreements remain over the consequences of various provisions in the bill, most environmental organizations agree that the passage of Waxman-Markey is a positive start [30], but that advocates should promote a stronger version in the Senate, which is slated for markup in September [31].
Strengthened energy efficiency standards: Efficient energy use means fewer emissions. Improving national energy efficiency standards [32] in order to meet international targets [33] has thus been a critical goal for advocates. The Obama Administration acted very early on in this respect. On January 26, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum [34] mandating that the U.S. auto fleet reach an average fuel efficiency of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Following that, on February 5, the President ordered the Department of Energy to achieve compliance with legally required efficiency standards [35] for 15 of 22 neglected product categories. The economic stimulus bill also contained significant support for energy efficiency [36]. Lastly, the Waxman-Markey [21] legislation sets new energy-efficiency standards for domestic and commercial appliances, buildings, and industrial energy. These measures have been broadly and enthusiastically supported [22] by the environmental community, and are generally in-line with international objectives.
Steeper regulations for coal-fired plants: Coal-fired plants are a primary source of carbon emissions -projected by the EIA [37] to reach 36% of U.S. emissions by 2030. A key international objective, affirmed in the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report [38], is to enhance regulatory standards on such plants as a way of providing "certainty and consistency on emission levels." In an unprecedented decision in mid-February, the Environmental Protection Agency moved on a Sierra Club/NRDC/EDF petition [39] requesting that carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants be regulated. Following this decision, the EPA released an endangerment finding [40], which classifies greenhouse gases (GhGs) as "pollutants" - an important pretext for future regulations on GhGs in coal-fired and other plants. Despite a Supreme Court decision in 2007 which ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act [41], this is the first time that the U.S. government has agreed to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions. The decision was widely applauded in the environmental world [42], with the 1Sky collaborative campaign [42] calling it a "green light for the EPA to act on what scientists have been saying for years..." On the Congressional side, the aforementioned Waxman-Markey [21] legislation includes both restrictions and allowances for coal-fired plants [24]. Significantly, the bill also "strips the EPA of regulatory authority to set performance standards for new and existing coal plants." [24] Reactions to these proposals have been mixed, but generally critical. Most environmental groups, including the broad-based 1Sky [24] campaign, support an immediate moratorium on new coal-fired plants that emit carbon pollution [24]. However, some in the progressive community, including the Center for American Progress [25], say that recently enacted regulations on the coal industry will be sufficient enough to deter the development of new coal plants [25] - provided, of course, that the stripping of EPA authority in this area is not enacted. Overall, the verdict from the environmental community is that regulatory actions from the Administration are very positive and in keeping with international standards, while the provisions in Waxman-Markey [21] should be strengthened in a Senate bill.
Investing in renewable energy technologies domestically and internationally: Renewable energy is, simply put, energy that does not produce carbon emissions. Therefore, sufficient investments in renewable energy technologies will be a cornerstone of any sustainable global agreement on emissions reductions. President Obama signed into law an economic stimulus package [36] that would "double the amount of renewable energy produced over the next three years," providing $60 billion dollars to "clean energy." [43] Furthermore, the President's plan, articulated in his budget blueprint [44], calls for investing $15 billion a year in renewable energy programs, as well as an estimated additional $656 billion, which will come from the cap-and-trade system's auction revenues. The Waxman-Markey bill envisions significant investments in renewable energy technologies as well - both domestically, and through technology transfers internationally. This includes using 1%-4% of auction revenues from the cap-and-trade system for "international clean-technology deployment." [45] The bill would also create a "Clean Energy Deployment Administration" which would "provide loans and loan guarantees to spur more private investment in energy technology." While advocates have applauded domestic investments in the bill, including in "green job creation [46]," there is a sense, as indicated by 1Sky [22] and Oxfam America [47], that the international clean energy investments will be inadequate in the context of global negotiations [22].
Encouraging mitigation commitments from key polluters, especially China, through leadership in multilateral and bilateral fora: As evidenced by reports on the Bonn climate negotiations [48], the United States has not yet fully assumed the mantle of leader [49] in these talks. In the recent Bonn negotiations, the U.S. did not put official emissions reduction numbers on the table - and further disappointed others by scheduling bi-lateral discussions with China during the Bonn conference [20]. However, Todd Stern, the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change [50], has been vigorously engaged in substantive discussions with China - of critical importance given that U.S. reluctance to commit to mandatory emissions cuts in the past has been due primarily to China's unwillingness to do the same. In those discussions, Stern highlighted the progress of the House climate bill as a demonstration of U.S. leadership [51], and discussed plans for a broad, clean energy collaboration between the United States and China [51], including the establishment of a "joint technological research and development center." But it is not clear that these talks are producing desired results. In fact, Stern is on record stating that the United States does not expect China to agree to a binding national cap "at this stage." [52] This was, however, followed up by a statement from Jonathan Pershing [53], the lead U.S. climate negotiator, which confirmed that the U.S. would still be pursuing a Chinese commitment to "legally binding CO2 reductions as part of a Copenhagen agreement." Reactions to U.S. engagement in international negotiations thus far have been mixed. Some argue that the U.S. has failed to exercise necessary leadership [20], and that an unwillingness to articulate binding commitments at this point in the negotiations will not help bring countries like China along. Others, however, concede that until the parameters of domestic climate legislation are clear, the Administration has its hands tied [54].
Preventing Deforestation and Expanding Forests
Key objective? Twenty percent [55] of total greenhouse gas emissions result from deforestation. The objectives of international and domestic civil society in terms of dealing with deforestation were broadly articulated in the 2007 Bali Action Plan [56], which called on nations to embrace "policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries."
How do we get there? There are a number of ways to address deforestation in the development of climate change policies. The most prominent proposals at the moment center around providing incentives for developing countries to halt tropical deforestation [57], reforesting areas, and ensuring that considerable financial resources are committed to these efforts.
Where are we now? Thus far, not much has been heard from the President in terms of U.S. policy towards international deforestation. Domestically, however, the Administration did call for a halt to the logging and development of 60 million acres of national forests [58]. The cap-and-trade policy outlined in the Waxman-Markey bill, on the other hand, commits 5% of revenues from auctioned permits to preventing international deforestation. [45] This comes to about $4 billion annually. 1Sky [24] estimates that this may contribute to a 10% reduction in emissions by 2020. Most environmental organizations believe that while this is a very promising first step, more ambitious commitments may be needed in order to secure a global deal that is acceptable to the developing world [59].
Adaptation (minimizing the vulnerability of human and natural systems to actual, or expected, effects of climate change): While 'mitigation' has been the primary focus of U.S. initiatives thus far, adaptation concerns are equally important and are beginning to gain traction. Most analysts agree that to secure a global deal in Copenhagen [1] this December, the developed world will have to provide substantial assistance to the developing world, which is already facing the effects of climate change - whether it be drought and its impacts on water availability and food production, increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, or the spread of diseases. This is not only seen as a practical matter for securing a deal, but also as a matter of fairness and justice - especially given that the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions stem from the developed world. For this reason, the Bali Action Plan [56] of 2007 included a commitment amongst UNFCCC [7] parties to "support urgent implementation" of programs to "protect poorer countries against climate change impacts."
Key Adaptation Objectives. A commonly accepted figure in terms of developed country commitments is "$50 billion every year for adaptation financing [60]" - a figure based on a recent study from the UNFCCC secretariat [61]. Key stakeholders in the U.S, such as the National Religious Partnership for the Environment [62] and the Inter Action Climate Change Working Group [63], have called for 7% of revenues from a future U.S. cap-and-trade program (or about $7 billion) to be directed towards international adaptation - and a total of "$12.5 billion to $21.5 billion per year for international adaptation [63]." U.S. advocates, like Oxfam America [64], have also supported "adaptation financing that is implemented with adequate accountability, transparency, and community participation."
Where are we now? The Obama Administration has not said very much about adaptation, preferring to remain relatively silent on the subject and allow Congress to work out the details. However, the Administration's key climate change negotiator, Todd Stern, recently stated in an interview [65] with reporters that "there's no question that a Copenhagen agreement is going to have to include mechanisms to provide for financial flows and technological assistance to developing countries." Though this does not commit the United States to providing a certain amount of adaptation assistance, it is a positive statement given the political sensitivity of foreign assistance during an economic crisis. The Administration has not yet said anything, however, about which mechanisms should be used to deliver that assistance. The Waxman-Markey [21] legislation, on the other hand, is specific. It commits 1 percent of auction revenue from the cap-and-trade system to helping other nations in adapting to climate change, which would then increase to 4% by 2027. According to Vicky Rateau of Oxfam USA [66], this would provide "approximately $750 million annually each for international adaptation and clean energy technology," far short of the $7 billion envisioned by advocates. On the domestic front, the legislation calls for 2 percent of the revenue to help the U.S. adapt to the negative effects of climate change, which would eventually rise to 8 percent. These measures, while welcome, are seen as inadequate [24] by many. Oxfam USA [67], for example, states [67] that the adaptation measures are "an important start but far short of the significant need in developing countries already facing serious climate-related impacts and the amount that will be necessary to achieve a global agreement."
Conclusion: The Obama Administration and Congress have broken considerably with past U.S. intransigence on the climate change issue. Support for concrete and enforceable action on climate change and constructive U.S. leadership within the UNFCCC framework, is high on the priority lists [68]at the highest levels of policy-making in Washington, including the President's. Nonetheless, political and economic realities, not the least of which is the financial crisis, remain as obstacles to robust action on the both the domestic and international front. The Obama Administration's international negotiating position will in all likelihood not be clear until the Congress produces a piece of climate legislation that is both passable domestically, and adequate in terms of both international expectations on emissions reductions, and adaptation assistance to the developing world. Organizations working on the issue are, on average, cautiously optimistic - and continue to work feverishly to ensure that a solution emerges which allows the United States to present itself as a responsible leader in the international community, as well as a responsible steward of the Earth's human and natural systems. The intervening months from now until Copenhagen [1] in December are an extraordinarily critical time for the United States, and the world. Watch this space for regular updates as things progress.
Updated: July 9, 2009
This report is part of an extended, regularly updated series on the issues of greatest concern to our community, highlighting the state of play on these key topics, and the state of the key players involved. For an abridged version of this article, click here [69]. We strongly encourage community members to comment on and add to this piece by sending an email to Francesco Femia at ffemia@connectusfund.org [70]. We will include all significant updates to these reports in future Connect U.S. Fund newsletters.
Posted: June 30, 2009