Payal Parekh's picture
Climate Scientist
I put my scientific training into action as a weapon in the struggle against destructive river projects. Less geeky interests include rock climbing, trekking and bicycling in the vicinity of breathtaking rivers (and taking a dip in them afterward), reading good fiction, making guerilla art and exploring hidden spaces.

Categories

User login

Waxman-Markey Bill: No Cuts until 2026!

Allowable US Emissions under Waxman-Markey

Allowable US Emissions under Waxman-Markey

While there is much to praise about the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the climate section of the draft bill is seriously weakened by its heavy reliance on offsets to substitute for actual emissions cuts by large polluters.

Take a look at the initial analysis by International Rivers and Rainforest Action Network of the offsets provisions in the draft bill, or read below for the highlights.

The bill eventually caps 85% of all US greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from fossil fuels and industrial processes. But a polluter can purchase an offset "credit", essentially a permit to pollute beyond the cap. The offsets can be purchased from sectors in the US not subject to emissions caps (such as farming, ranching, forestry and landfills) or from developing countries. The bill allows up to two billion offsets each year (one billion domestic, one billion international) - each supposedly an avoided emission of one metric ton of carbon dioxide. This is equivalent to almost 30% of 2005 emissions!

The rationale is that since there is only one atmosphere, it doesn't care where the emissions occur. The problem is that it is not possible to ensure the additionality of these credits - i.e. "that every credit represents real, measureable, and long-term reductions in emissions," as concluded by the Government Accountability Office in a November 2008 report (see our earlier blog). Our analysis of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the world's largest carbon offset scheme, suggests that upwards of 75% of projects that received offsets were not additional.

The draft bill establishes a regulatory structure that is based upon the CDM's approval process. But experience with the CDM indicates that such a regulatory structure is unlikely to ensure that most offsets represent real emission reductions. Furthermore the shear number of offsets that the draft bill allows is almost seven times larger than the CDM expects to generate annually between 2008-2012. In order to meet potential demand, the US system will be under pressure to favor a speedy and unrigorous approvals process.

What does this mean in terms of greenhouse gas emissions? If polluters indeed use the maximum allowable number of offset credits, domestic emissions in 2012 would increase by 38% rather than decrease by 3%, the reduction that the cap sets. Emissions would not dip below 2005 levels until 2026, 17 years from today (see Figure). If all eligible offsets were used, the 20% reduction supposed to happen by 2020 would not actually be reached until 2036. The reduction in 2050 would be only 50% rather than the stated 83% (see Figure). These reductions are clearly not enough to prevent global temperature from rising by more than two degrees Celsius (3.6o F), a threshold that many scientists believe will lead to dangerous consequences, if crossed.

The energy provisions in the Waxman-Markey bill could lead to the urgently needed transformation in how the US produces and consumes energy. Unfortunately the offsetting provisions in the climate action part of the bill considerably weaken its potential to drive down US emissions to the levels necessary to avoid climate chaos. Fortunately the Waxman-Markey bill is only a draft and can still be saved. Removing offset provisions from the bill, or significantly curtailing them, would prevent offsets from undermining the environmental integrity of the bill.

Comments

Greenhouse gases

Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. The main greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are factoring us water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

I just helped a friend of

I just helped a friend of mine build a small greenhouse of his own. I think building using a greenhouse for food production on an individual level is a swell way to address the "greenhouse gas issue".

Thanks a lot for the kind of

Thanks a lot for the kind of perfect topic about this topic. It’s good to buy an essay about this good topic. I Write a good article. Thank you. I'm still waiting for this kind of writing you would always follow. I hope you'll continue to write articles of this type. But I can not enjoy this beautiful, sometimes in writing. Difficult to reach your site.

How much greenhouse gases do

How much greenhouse gases do humans emit compared to non-human nautural activities?When did humans begin using greenhouse gases? Also, if humans never created greenhouse gases and today was just an extension of the dark ages, would the global warming trend of the past 100-200 years still be occurring?

Carbon Offsets Are Necessary

I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of carbon offsets as being unreliable and not additional. Many offset standards are backed by leading environmental and non-govermental organizations, and adhere to very high standards to ensure additionality. Though we want to achieve deep cuts in our emissions in the United States, carbon offsets work to help us cut emissions globally where it is most cost effective.

Think about cutting carbon emissions like buying food -- you can grow some in your backyard in the city, but most people are going to need to offset the fact that they can't grow enough food to live on in their own plot of land, so you buy food from the store. The food at the store was produced en masse at a location where it is cost effective to do so.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There have been some problems with CDM projects, but most validated carbon offset projects have been proven to be completely additional and cost effective. We want to cut emissions globally, that includes the US, but it also includes everywhere else.

Thanks,

Paul

Check out the Carbonfund.org Blog! http://www.carbonfund.org/blog

Could you go on a diet for me, please?

Dear Paul,

Thanks for your comments.

I would be interested in seeing the evidence that most carbon offsets are additional and cost-effective. Studies that I am aware of indicate that 40% to over 75% of offset projects are non-additional. For example, Lambert Schnieder of Germany's Institute for Applied Ecology estimates that about 40% of the projects registered by the CDM by mid-2007 were of "unlikely or at least questionable" additionality. This estimate can be considered a conservative one because of assumptions he made. David Victor, head of Stanford's Energy and Sustainable Development Program, told an electrical industry conference in Washington, DC last year that he estimates "between a third and two thirds" of CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts. Our analysis of the CDM data shows that 3/4 of projects were up and running at the time they were approved by the CDM.

I also cannot agree with you that offsets are a cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The single project type slated to generate the most offsets by 2012 through the CDM is the destruction of HFC-23, a powerful greenhouse gas. Michael Wara of Stanford's Law School estimated that the HFC projects in the CDM pipeline in 2006 would generate 4.7 billion euros in pre-tax revenues for refrigerant manufacturers, mostly in China and India. According to Wara, destroying the gases would have cost less than 100 million euros. Spending 47 times more than necessary to destroy a greenhouse gas hardly seems cost-effective to me!

I think a better analogy for offsets is like paying someone to go on a diet, so that you can lose weight.

Payal

"leading"

The key word in Mr. Paul's comment - for me - is "leading" in the context of environmentalism. At heart, deep down inside, the environment does not need leaders, but cooperators, mutual aid, love, spirit and compassion. Economistic equations forwarded by professional leaders is the very threat that the environment is facing.

Likewise, caution is well adviced with regard to scientific Truth claims (whether economistic or environmentalistic) - after all, the environmental grass roots movements were for decades at the forefront of critical science and technology studies. It would be dangerous to suddenly invest notions of Truth in Science & Technology, which is what is happening at the moment, meaning that the (far) Left and the (far) Right are beginning to share views on things like climate change. In turn that constitutes a threat of an eco-fascist regime.

 

Colonos- Amazonia por la Vida!

http://colonos.wordpress.com