Achieving the climate goal

Short-term targets key to long-term stabilization

Posted by Tony Kreindler (Guest Contributor) at 12:46 PM on 24 Jun 2008

Read more about: climate | climate science | climate change mitigation | politics | legislation

Ken Ward takes a worthwhile look at the goalposts for U.S. climate policy in his argument for making 350 parts per million the new bright line for success. We agree that we need to aim lower than 450 ppm -- the world is at roughly 380 ppm now, and we're already witnessing adverse climate impacts.

But we part ways when it comes to how we're going to get there. Ward suggests that EDF's support for the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act can't be reconciled with a stabilization target below 450 ppm, because the bill as written wouldn't drive sufficient emissions reductions. In fact, there's nothing incompatible about the two. Here's why:

First, the climate effects that we are seeing at today's concentration levels are only going to get worse as emissions rise unabated. We shouldn't agree to a weak proposal, but delaying action until we get a bill that achieves all the necessary reductions in one fell swoop may simply condemn us to more pollution and increasingly dangerous climate change. In addition, getting back to today's concentration levels (or below) will mean managing unchecked emissions growth not only in the U.S., but in the large emitting countries that are waiting for us to act before stepping forward. We need to act -- before its too late.

Second, aggressive short-term pollution reduction targets like those in the Climate Security Act are an indispensible part of the equation for deeper long-term reductions. A strong 2020 target tells companies to start cutting pollution now and investing in low-carbon technologies. When the early reductions are achieved at lower-than expected costs -- and the technology to produce cleaner energy is scaled up -- legislators will have the assurances they need to set even stronger goals.

Congress will undoubtedly revisit the targets and timetables for U.S. climate policy over the next four decades, and any bill should require that based on science. What we need now is strong action -- to begin making the pollution cuts we urgently need to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at or below today's levels, and to give Congress the confidence that tighter long-term limits are both achievable and cost-effective. Delay only means steeper cuts, higher costs, and lower chances to achieve either of those goals.

For story: Achieving the climate goal
4 Comments | Post a Comment

Honesty

L-W's 2020 target (and those of essentially all the other bills out there) would bring net US emissions into the range of 1990 levels, under optimistic accounting. That bill (and other bills out there) only has look back provisions that would kick in around 2019.

To achieve CO2-equiv stabilization around 450 ppm, the 2020 target needs to be 25-40% below 1990 levels.

I'm befuddled how you do the math to consider the L-W 2020 target "strong" and "aggressive."

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up.

The Wonk Room

by Brad Johnson at 1:31 PM on 24 Jun 2008

the broken record response to broken records

Congress will undoubtedly revisit the targets and timetables for U.S. climate policy over the next four decades

well right now it looks more like congress will revisit the targets for maybe the first two decades and then the work will be outsourced to the biosphere itself.

and any bill should require that based on science.

especially when the bill is based on conservative summaries of science that were drafted under the watchful eyes of the politicians who will be setting the targets. you wouldn't want to embarrass anyone.

Delay only means steeper cuts, higher costs, and lower chances to achieve either of those goals.

this is cut-and-paste material from ten years ago. we've already reached the "lower chances" moment.

except those higher costs are offset by the fact that we need to fix a lot of infrastructure anyway and the fossil fuel costs are flying. one way or the other we're investing in big new ways. there's never been a better time to make a clean break.

by hapa at 4:36 PM on 24 Jun 2008

Brad

Energy Comm thinks it has Fossil 10 and Obama (see senior staff) in its pocket for next year

plan is to gut 2020 caps in L-W, among other things

senior staff cliques are strong

count more than ephemeral slogans

by ce1907 at 7:31 PM on 24 Jun 2008

EDF: throwing it all away

Having read Ken Ward's widely emailed critique of EDF's deteriorating climate policy, I came back here to read Tony Kreindler's original post. It appears that as EDF drifts farther and farther from the science of global warming, its explanations of its positions necessarily become more and more obtuse. It appears EDF can no longer engage in honest discourse, because such discourse would reveal the fundamental inconsistencies of its position.

Kreindler tells us to support the woefully inadequate Lieberman-Warner bill because we need action now and can't wait for an adequate bill. This argument might make some sense if L-W had significant chance of passing. But L-W was declared impassible by its supporters (including EDF) prior to the battle, and even now EDF says it is unlikely to pass in 2009. So supporting a weak bill that won't pass, won't get you quick action on global warming? All it will do is set the bar low for the next bill. It would have been far wiser to support a good bill in 2008, thus setting a high bar for the next round. All EDF's position has done is confuse the public about the science of global warming and lower the political bar.

Kreindler tells us that had L-W passed, its target level of 488 ppm (EPA is certainly optimistic on this projection by the way) is not incompatible with reducing to 350 ppm. Tellingly, he gives no explanation of the emissions pathway that puts on a L-W course then divert to a 350 ppm. That is because there is no pathway. Jim Hansen's recent research shows that if we don't enact much steeper short-term cuts than L-W, we can not get to 350 ppm anytime in the next hundred years and we will likely pass into runaway global warming over which we have no control. Kreindler's hand waving on this central point indicates that he is more concerned about protecting EDF's image that stopping global warming.

Here are a few predictions for you:

EDF will in every case support any major greenhouse gas policy put forth by the Democratic leadership regardless of how weak it is. This will necessitate it invoking increasingly obtuse explanations. And because cracks will always develop in such a rhetorical strategy, EDF will fairly regularly contradict itself and flat out lie.
EDF will work with energy corporations to develop general principles which sound good but are entirely unenforcable. It will run to the press expounding its win-win, capitalists-like-it victory. Then, as an enforcible bill approaches, even one weaker than the supposed corporate agreement, those energy companies will refuse to support it. EDF will not respond by criticize its corporate partners or pointing out the contradictions. Then will reenact the play over again.
EDF will continue to have energy corporations on its board of directors.

This will all occur because EDF is not fundamentally an environmental group. Its mission is to work with corporations to incrementally improve corporate citizenship. When that mission collide with environmental needs, the environment is tossed and media hacks like Kreindler will fan out to "explain" EDF's policies while EDF's scientists quietly cry in their cubicles.

by DrBenway at 9:21 AM on 27 Jul 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

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.