Burtraw said that one surprising conclusion is that he and Woerman project greater emissions reductions under the combination of EPA regulations, continued energy market trends and state and regional efforts than those projected under the passage of the Waxman-Markey legislation.

The reason, he said, is that two-thirds of the emissions reduction pledges could be achieved through international and domestic carbon offsets and by banking emissions reductions. Emissions under the bill might have fallen 8.2 percent and would have pre-empted EPA action on greenhouse gas emissions.

"I think that a cap-and-trade program would have been more efficient, from an international perspective, in achieving greenhouse gas reductions," said Burtraw. "But what we see is that the current regulations can do a good job of IDing low-hanging fruit -- the kinds of things like regulation of mobile sources, renewable energy portfolio and energy efficiency standards."

He added, "Out past 20 years, though, and the fruit is going to be higher up in the tree, and therefore, it may become more difficult to achieve deeper reductions."

Lashof sees no contradiction in the current patchwork of state and federal legislation that has already been implemented and the role of a future national carbon pricing mechanism.

"With what's happening in leading states, with clean air standards and market trends, we're definitely within striking distance of the 2020 targets," he said. But, he added, without a comprehensive federal climate change plan, meeting emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2050 becomes much more difficult to achieve.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

4 Comments

1. 1. sethdiyal 02:13 PM 10/24/12

   "Natural gas emits about half as much carbon as coal"
   
   Why 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?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. a_galoot in reply to Shoshin 08:35 PM 10/25/12

   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 this

3. 3. greenhome123 05:46 PM 10/27/12

   I 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 this

4. 4. dwbd in reply to greenhome123 09:21 PM 10/27/12

   Yep, 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.
   
   You'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.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this