EMISSIONS TARGET: The U.S. is on track, perhaps surprisingly, to meet its Copenhagen pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.
Image: Flickr/sparktography
The United States is likely to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 16.3 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, falling just shy of the 17 percent target pledged by President Obama at the 2009 climate talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, according to a new study.
"With the failure to pass comprehensive climate legislation in the 2010-2011 Congress, most analysts in the U.S. and internationally would have concluded that the U.S. is doing nothing to meet its Copenhagen pledge," said Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at Resources for the Future (RFF) and lead author of the report.
"The surprise is that we appear to be on course to meet that pledge, and that's a finding that is very different than the expectation that people are carrying around in the U.S. and internationally," he added.
Burtraw and co-author Matt Woerman calculate that the largest portion of projected emissions reductions will come about through U.S. EPA regulations of mobile sources, such as cars and light trucks, and stationary sources, such as power plants and industrial facilities.
"Taken together, these initiatives are expected to achieve emissions reductions of 10.5 percent by 2020 compared to a 2005 baseline," says the report.
Another 3.3 percent reduction in emissions is likely to be achieved through trends in energy markets, mainly the low price of natural gas and improvements in energy efficiencies.
Natural gas emits about half as much carbon as coal. Recent technological advances have opened up vast domestic deposits of shale gas on the East Coast, in Texas and Oklahoma, and in the Great Plains. Gas prices have plummeted, leading many energy producers to abandon coal-fired generation.
The states contribute
State and regional carbon emissions-reduction efforts are likely to add a 2.5 percent drop by 2020, says the report.
In January, California will launch a cap-and-trade system that will affect power producers and industry as well as fund renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative caps emissions from power plants in nine Northeastern states. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted renewable energy standards, and 24 states have funded energy efficiency programs.
"We look at [state and regional initiatives] and take a fairly conservative view," Burtraw said. "We assume no other states will adopt energy standards, which appears to defy recent history because states continue to make moves in these areas."
Pending EPA regulations mean "substantial uncertainties" remain with at least some of the projected reductions, but experts concur with the general conclusions of the analysis.
"I think it's an important observation that many people have noticed but hasn't gotten much attention," said Daniel Lashof, director of the National Resources Defense Council's Climate and Clean Air Program. Lashof authored in July an NRDC issue brief projecting a smaller reduction in greenhouse gas emissions than in the RFF study, but at a level that put the 17 percent target "squarely within reach."
While RFF projects the United States to come close to meeting its emissions reduction pledge, the authors expect the United States to fail to fulfill its commitment to the Green Climate Fund, which was agreed to in Copenhagen.
Pledges to the fund from developed nations are expected to reach $100 billion per year by 2020 and include both public aid and private investment. The funds will go to boosting less developed nations' green energy production and assist them in adapting to the rising seas and extreme weather events brought about by global warming.
Patchwork solution has limited future
The climate bill introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), which was approved by the House in 2009, would have provided financing for the climate fund through the sale of carbon offset credits. But the Senate did not approve a companion measure, so the United States lacks a scheme for meeting its financing commitment.
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add Comment"Natural gas emits about half as much carbon as coal"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do we continually get this stupidity. When we add the effect of production and transmission leaks, the warming of effect of natural gas exceeds coal.
So are the official numbers going to exclude these potent 75 times as dangerous methane as a GHG producer? Who knows?
Shoshin, as a scientist who works in the fields of coal and natural (shale, csg) gas, I do need to say that comparing the environmental impacts of burning coal with burning natural gas is extremely difficult, and it is a very young field of research. You cannot just dismiss sethdiyal as being a fool, although he/she may be completely wrong for all I know. Presently there is NO definitive answer to this "burning" question (heheheh), despite what you may have heard: the conclusions of various studies depend completely on their assumptions. That's quite frustrating and illustrates we have a lot to learn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope more home owners in southern, sunny states, begin taking initiate and start putting solar panels on their homes. If they can't afford it then they should lease the solar panels. In some states, like California, the monthly cost to lease solar panels is actually less expensive than monthly payment to the power company, so homeowners immediately save money by leasing solar panels for their homes. Also, solar panel leasing provides more certainty about future energy rates, as a solar panel lease locks in rates for term of the contract, where as utility rates could easily increase during that time. Also, I hope that homeowners soon realize that they can save money on energy cost by doing little inexpensive improvements to their homes, like replacing their light bulbs with high efficiency LED bulbs, and replacing old windows with double pained windows. Finally, another huge contributor to greenhouse gases, which is often overlooked, is the consumption of meat. We could significantly reduce greenhouse gases as well as health care cost by cutting down the amount of meat we eat, as it is a well know fact that eating less meat reduces probability of many diseases. By the way, I am agnostic, but for all of you Christians out there, Jesus was a vegetarian who strongly opposed killing animals (with the exception of fish, which he didn't seem to mind).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYep, steal food out of the mouth's of children to give huge subsidies (upwards of $30,000) to the wealthy to put Solar panels on their homes, to the benefit of no-one but themselves. Jesus would have approved that, yeah, sure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're Solar has done ZIP in Germany, the #2 CO2 belcher in Europe, (#1 is Wind Energy Denmark @ 660 gms) with 601 gms CO2 per kwh generated, vs Nuclear France @ 83 gms CO2 per kwh.
And LED light bulbs are still in the neighborhood of $60k per kw of avg energy saved. A ridiculous way to cut emissions. At least 10X the cost of Nuclear power. Use some common sense.
And the only time Jesus committed an act of violence is when he threw the Moneychangers, aka Banksters, out of the Church. And who is financing and promoting this Wind & Solar Charade - yep, you guessed it the Banksters and their Big Oil partners. The Rockefeller Robber Barons being a good example of the partnership of Big Oil & Big Banking.