GROUP: U.S. LIKELY TO ACHIEVE 2020 EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGET

Tamar Hallerman
GHG Monitor
11/2/12

Even without federal climate legislation in place, the U.S. is on track to meet its emissions reduction goal for 2020, according to a discussion paper released late last week by Resources for the Future. In fact, authors Dallas Burtraw and Matt Woerman argue that in the short term the U.S. will likely achieve more emissions reductions through the end of the decade under the status quo than what would have occurred under the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade proposal that passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009. “The reason is that a large portion of the emissions reductions that were expected under cap and trade would have been offsets, whereas many of the factors driving emissions reductions under the current Clean Air Act regime would have been effectively or explicitly preempted under cap and trade,” the paper says.

At the United Nation’s climate change summit in Copenhagen in 2009, President Obama voluntarily pledged that the U.S. would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. But after climate legislation stalled in the Senate in 2010, many argued that meeting that goal would be nearly impossible. Burtraw and Woerman, though, say that even without the measure, the U.S. is “on course” to meet Obama’s Copenhagen pledge. The paper says that under the status quo, the U.S. is expected to achieve greenhouse gas reductions of 16.3 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. “Substantial uncertainty remains because important regulations are still pending. Nonetheless, our central estimate indicates that the United States is near to reaching this goal,” the paper says.

GHG Regulations, Cheap Gas Prices Contributed to Emissions Dip

The pair attributes the lion’s share of those reductions to planned and finalized greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Act such as performance standards for new and existing stationary sources and fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Other factors that have contributed, according to Burtraw and Woerman, include cheap natural gas prices that have led to a shift away from coal in the electricity generation sector, energy efficiency measures and lower energy demand as a result of the recent economic recession. State and regional emissions reduction schemes such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast, the cap-and-trade program expected to be operational in California early next year and renewable portfolio standards enacted in 29 states have also led to significant emissions reductions, according to the paper. 

The paper estimates that the 111th Congress’ Waxman-Markey proposal—which would have covered nearly 85 percent of U.S. emissions—would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions roughly 30 percent by 2020. However, Burtraw and Woerman point out that nearly two-thirds of those savings would have occurred through domestic and international emissions offsets and not from reducing emissions directly from the point sources themselves. “We estimate the comprehensive cap-and-trade program proposed for the United States in 2009–2010 would have yielded emissions reductions in the domestic economy of 13.6 percent in 2020, compared to 2005 levels. Total emissions reductions accounting for offsets would total 32.4 percent,” the paper says. Furthermore, the paper says that implementing federal climate legislation in 2010 could have ultimately preempted many of the developments—such as the Clean Air Act greenhouse gas regulations and the implementation of state and regional cap-and-trade schemes—that have led to today’s emissions reductions.

Some Say 2020 Study is Misleading

The discussion paper has already seen some criticism. Michael Levi from the Council of Foreign Relations responded in a blog post that establishing a price on carbon is a better policy for the long term. “Focusing on 2020 can be misleading. It is possible to make substantial short-term emissions cuts without really setting the stage for much deeper ones later,” he said. “The U.S. emissions goals for 2020 were long believed to be rather weak—even the U.S. negotiating team in Copenhagen often emphasized the 2030 and 2050 goals when defending the U.S. approach. In the end, I believe Butraw and Woerman when they say that the United States might well end up doing better domestically by 2020 than it would have with cap-and-trade. But I worry that if we don’t put long-term signals to the market in place soon, that victory will be ephemeral, as our longer-term climate goals slip further from remaining realistic.”

Burtraw subsequently said he agreed in a blog post of his own. “Focusing on 2020 can be misleading. Even if the U.S. is on course to achieve its goals for 2020 and if emissions reductions here in the U.S. are greater than would have occurred with cap and trade, the climate is not better off than if cap and trade had passed,” he said in his response. “To achieve the kind of emissions reductions that are called for beyond 2020 requires a price on carbon because that would help achieve emissions reductions in a cost effective way across the economy and provide the incentive for innovation that will be necessary to achieve long run emissions reduction goals.”