Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

McCain's targets

Emission reduction targets proposed by McCain are insufficient but squarely in the mainstream

Posted by David Roberts at 11:35 AM on 12 May 2008

Here is the schedule of targets John McCain has proposed for his cap-and-trade program:

  • 2012: Return emissions to 2005 levels (18 percent above 1990 levels)
  • 2020: Return emissions to 1990 levels (15 percent below 2005 levels)
  • 2030: 22 percent below 1990 levels (34 percent below 2005 levels)
  • 2050: 60 percent below 1990 levels (66 percent below 2005 levels)

The two things to note about these targets:

  1. They are insufficient based on the latest science.
  2. They are roughly in line with other cap-and-trade proposals, from both sides of the aisle.

The long-term target falls short of the "80 percent by 2050" the IPCC recommends (which has become iconic among climate activists), and well short of the 90-100 percent that the newest science indicates is needed. But as I've argued before, the long-term targets aren't that huge of a deal -- they will almost certainly be revised many times before 2050.

The short-term targets are the important thing. Scientists tell us that if global average temperatures rise more than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, we court species-threatening catastrophe. To avoid exceeding that threshold, the IPCC recommends that industrialized countries cut their emissions 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

That daunting target will give us only a 50 percent chance of avoiding 2 degrees C, and that's assuming the 2007 IPCC report is the best guide. But the science that's come in since the report is relentlessly dire, and many climate scientists believe the IPCC was dangerously conservative. A safe target would probably be more like 50-80 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

That would require action of scope and speed unprecedented in human history. So we shouldn't be surprised that it's not a popular proposal among politicians. Obama's plan, the Lieberman-Warner bill, Waxman's Safe Climate Act, the Sanders-Boxer Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, and even the principles proposed by three of the House's strongest climate advocates all come down roughly around the 1990-levels-by-2020 target.

No politician that I'm aware of has yet proposed substantially strong short-term targets. So while McCain's targets may be insufficient, they are squarely in the political mainstream.

PLAN B! PLAN B!

PLAN B! PLAN B!

doesn't help with oil prices now, though. we have a distinct lack of slack and infrastructure.

Just to call a spade a spade,

I would NEVER vote for a Republican, who ideologically identified himself as a Republican, in spite of all the pretty language he might speak regarding fossils, and butterflies, and whatever.

Self-identification as a Republican, from around the Gerald Ford presidency, is a sign of more or less grave moral deficiency.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Starting point

Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at an acceptable level probably requires more aggressive action. That being said, this is not a terrible place from which to begin negotiations: both between presidential candidates in the United States and between the United States and other countries. If the US was willing to commit to those targets unilaterally (and do so with a credible plan for actually achieving them), it might become a lot easier to get countries like China and India to begin making a more substantial contribution to the mitigation effort.

In exchange, the United States could adopt the kind of targets (and supplemental actions, like aid in preventing tropical deforestation) that are actually required to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at a level around 450ppm, thus keeping total global temperature change in the realm of two degrees Celsius.

a sibilant intake of breath

5% Solution gets 50% by 2022

Reductions of just 5% a year -- very attainable -- produce a 50% drop in emissions in 14 years.  In 2022 or 2023, if we're looking at a 50% reduction from present levels (much higher than 1990 baseline) then we'll be feeling pretty good - we'll have done much of the work needed, and the absolute amount we'll have to keep cutting will be much less than the cuts we have to make in the first few years.

The 5% Project
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks