EMISSIONS PLEDGE: The U.S. has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade, but will require greater effort to meet that promise.
Image: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
The United States is not on track to meet its Copenhagen climate change target, according to a new major study that could undermine the Obama administration's claims to the international community that it is headed in the right direction.
The findings from the World Resources Institute show the United States could still achieve its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by the end of this decade even if Congress won't pass legislation. It urges a "go-getter" approach that combines rules on power plants, curbing methane, strong state policies and energy efficiency measures.
"The U.S. is not yet on track or hit its 17 percent reduction target, but we have the tools to get there," lead author Nicholas Bianco said. "It would require significant, ambitious action by the administration. Anything less than that, and we fall short."
A State Department spokeswoman said the Obama administration is aware of the report and reviewing it but declined to comment on the findings. State Department officials also declined to discuss remarks that Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern made at the most recent U.N. global warming meeting, claiming the United States is "making good progress" on the commitment it made at the 2009 U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Climate change activists, eager to see the administration take bold action on power plant emissions and push for an international global warming treaty in 2015, avoided criticizing Stern. Some noted that in the same speech, Stern also acknowledged that the United States must do more to reduce emissions.
Still, the absence of a clear outline -- as so many other nations have produced -- from the Obama administration about how it intends to keep its emissions promise is a continuing point of contention among activists and some lawmakers.
"This report reminds us of the urgent need to address climate change, and that the Administration could achieve by 2020 our goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels, through 'go-getter action' under current law," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, (D-R.I.) said in a statement.
Call for a plan
Whitehouse noted that his newly formed Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change "has asked the Obama administration to outline a plan to accomplish that goal, and I hope they do so soon."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who helped lead a failed charge for carbon cap-and-trade legislation during Obama's first term, said in a statement that the WRI report "reaffirms the urgency of climate change threat and the pressing need to take action."
He praised past administration regulations and called the report an "important source of ideas" as Obama develops "an aggressive plan for administrative action."
The WRI study comes on the heels of an analysis by the nonprofit group Resources for the Future. That analysis -- which Stern and other State Department officials cited repeatedly at the United Nations -- found that the administration was in fact on target. Yesterday, the authors of the newest report said that the two analyses differ more in "messaging" than in substance.
Specifically, the WRI report calls for "immediately" moving, under the Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions from power plants and natural gas systems, two sectors that analysts said represent the best opportunities for short-term carbon cuts. It also urges the United States to pursue both internationally and domestically reductions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are used as refrigerants, and calls on states to complement federal actions with energy efficiency, renewables, transportation and other measures.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentThanks for a timely alert about the WRI report!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the US misses- so what?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe USA releases 20% of global carbon emissions and has been one of the largest impediments to an international agreement to address global emissions as well. If the USA waits to act until other countries act, nothing will ever get done because other countries won't act until the USA does. Expecting others to have already made emissions reductions before the USA can step into an existing emissions framework is a failure of leadership and completely ignores the dangers of increasing climate stability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's simple, just
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- use shale gas to replace coal-plants
- massive buildup of Small Nuclear Reactor (SMR), USA has been the technology leader since 40's. Now is the time to replace coal-plants with IFR, MSR,.and their offsprings PRISM, LFTR, ..
- use forest biomass and peat to make next generation biodiesel and replace Saudi-oil dependence
When methane emissions of shale gas are taken into account, its climate benefits are close to nill or even worse than coal in some instances. Neither LFTRs nor any of the other reactor types you mentioned have been proven commercially. It will take a decade or two to get even demonstration reactors up and running. Considering the emissions reductions timeline humanity needs to follow, this is WAY too slow. Renewable energy and efficiency have already PROVEN capable of reducing emissions all while reducing all the other pollution associated with fossil fuel as well. Maybe in the 2nd half of the 21st Century advanced nuclear technologies can play a role, but it's reckless to put all our resources into a technology that might not pan out considering the consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't forget solar photovoltaic and solar thermal, as well as wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy view about PV-panels and windmill renewables- decades and billions are gone, and results almost zero?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich countries have succeeded best in fighting GHGs, ultra small smoke particles, etc pollution?
Good guys,
which are emitting very little GHG s and fine particles:
- Norway, Island make almost all of their electricity with hydropower,
- Sweden makes 90% with hydro and nuclear.
- France makes 80% electricity with nuclear, and soon biodiesel from forest biomass
- Finland uses increasingly the clean and cheap nuclear power to replace coal – and renewable forest and peat biomass to replace fossil oil with biodiesel.
…
Bad guys:
Denmark, Germany, Spain, California,…. still make about 80-90% energy by burning fossil coal, oil, gas,
This despite of heavily supporting windmills and PV-panels since 80′s?
Now, Germany supports those windmills and PV-panels with 30-40 billion dollars a year- and still get only about 4 % of their electricity, according to Vattenfall. Generating capacity can be large, but due to the intermittent nature of wind blowing and sun shining, spikes must be pushed to neighboring countries… neighbors usually don’t like huge spikes in grid, because it destroys electric machines, computers etc. connected to grid….
Google: Der Spiegel German energy revolution
And Spain then ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-29/spain-ejects-clean-power-industry-with-europe-precedent-energy.html
"… In the 2000s, Spain copied the German clean-power aid model, as did from Portugal to Israel and Japan, increasing subsidies to a in 2007. That’s when a law granted 444 euros ($556) a -hour for home rooftop solar panels feeding the power grid, with an average 39 euros paid to competing coal- or gas-fired plants.
By 2009, the consumer bill for clean-energy aid had risen to 6 billion a year, ahead of the 5.6 billion euros in Germany, whose economy almost four times bigger, according to the Council of European Energy Regulators. After four successive reductions in subsidies since then, the government on Jan. 27 this year announced the moratorium on aid for new projects. The next month Spain saw itself drop out of the 10 most attractive markets for renewable-energy investors for the first time,
due to reduced aid, on an Ernst & Young ranking. Spain led the list from October 2003 through July 2006.
…"
Excellent books about energy policies, emissions and lobbying:
Tom Blees: Prescription for the Planet,
William Tucker: Terrestrial energy
Richard Martin Superfuell Thorium
According to Tom, John Kerry works against effective GHG-minimizing methods ….maybe he even gets support from the rich BigOil/Coal/gas lobby ?
Read and think if…
In the year 1994 John Kerry killed a really brilliant technology, IFR, Integrated Fast Reactor, developed for many years since 1940′s at Argonne National Labs.
IFR was already then ready to use- it could have saved our planet, including US economy and exports?
About risks related to nuclear plants?
TMI 1979 – no one killed or got even sick there
Chernobyl – 31 died in radiation syndrome after getting huge amount of radiation
Fukushima – 30 000 died because of earthquake and tsunami- but nobody has died because of radiation there
Google: Dose Response 2010 Chernobyl Jaworowski
You're blind if you think clean energy is producing zero results. The article about Spain you keep reposting is only about how the financial collapse is causing them to cut back on their incentives. How is this "zero results" anyway?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"These are the same suppliers that spearheaded more than $69 billion of wind and solar projects since 2004 that today supply more than 50 percent of Spain’s power demand on the most breezy and sunny days."
Are you going to run from this article too when you are confronted with your deceptive claims? You claimed in another post that in Feb 2012 Germany sold massive amount of power to France. You & your link implied that it was solar power. Turns out it was at night time when there was no wind so it definitely was not alternative energy. You are a prime example of why the world continues to unnecessarily burn fossil fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave a look at posts 4,5,6 & 7 here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dynegy-power-plant-blown-up&posted=1#comments
Read saults link & you will see that it was carefully worded to imply Germany sold solar power to France, without actually saying it. Then read the post exposing the lie.
Deniers and defenders of the status quo feed on misinformation. There will always be those who place the private and national interests of the United States above the fate of humankind. Presumably intergenerational and international justice plays no role in their calculations, which are only concerned with the bottom line. Whatever we can do to achieve our international obligations should be done, although it will not prevent the effects of 2 degrees of global warming that will result from the current mix of gases in the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again you are wrong about the facts.
1. The US has not been an impediment to international agreements. The US has been supporting agreements with meaning that had provisions for accountability. What good are agreements without a means to ensure that nations are following what was agreed upon?
2. Will the weather be net worse for the US in the future because this agreement was not followed? Do you have ANY reliable evidence of your belief? NO!
3. You write that other countries won’t act unless or until the US does. Why should anyone believe your comment? Other independent countries do not simply follow the US’s perspectives. Do you think Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Iran, etc. need the approval of the US in order to reduce their CO2 emissions?
As I have written before, there are many no regrets policies that can be implemented in regards to potential climate change that almost all agree make sense. I ask that the US policies make sense.
You do not know that anything positive will happen as a result of staying on the emissions reductions targets, but you wish them to be adhered to anyway.
Why are nuclear power enthusiasts also such fans of Communism? Is it because nuclear power can ONLY operate with VAST government support and their pipedreams only become real when authoritarians demand these reactors be built? And yes, India MIGHT have 5 reactors in service in 2020. China might have one in-service in 2017. However, China will have installed SEVERAL TIMES, maybe even more than 10x the capacity of this plant in just rooftop solar by then. India will probably be in the same situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, this technology might be promising, but the carbon reductions we need NOW will be provided by efficiency and renewables for the next decade or two at least.
Who is Jean-Marc Desperrier and why should I care? My article quoted one of the French grid operators thusly:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"a spokesperson for transit grid operator Amprion told him that ‘photovoltaics in southern Germany is currently helping us a lot.’”
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/09/clean-energy-loving-germany-increasingly-exporting-electricity-to-nuclear-heavy-france/#aopCK64gWaiB8tZP.99
Sorry, but France is getting bailed out by Germany. Look, nuclear power sounded promising, but it's just too expensive to build the plants. Consequently, it's extremely difficult to match forecast demand 10 - 20 years ahead of time when a nuclear plant will be in operation. Along with ballooning costs, the fact that electricity demand did not keep up with forecasts made in the 60's meant that the nuclear industry totally missed the mark in the 80's. Renewables offer flexibility, ease and speed of installation, no waste, no meltdowns, no reprocessing and we actually have a good idea of how to scrap them at the end of their useful life as opposed to nuclear plants...the only one that has ever even been PARTIALLY decommissioned is the unit that melted down at Chernobyl.
"If the USA waits to act until other countries act, nothing will ever get done"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou must be joking. Follow the news. In Europe they have been busy and investing billions of Euro`s for many (MANY) years reducing emissions and building wind, solar and bio energy production. Unlike the US they don`t even use the reduce under 2005 levels. They use much bigger targets of under 1990 levels (much less emission then 2005 levels).
Under the Kyoto Protocol (that Europe and only a few other countries actually implemented), the 15 countries that were EU members before 2004 ('EU-15') were committed to reducing their collective emissions to 8% below 1990 levels by the years 2008-2012 (which they achieved). Most Member States that have joined the EU since 2004 also had Kyoto reduction targets of 6% or 8% below 1990 levels which they achieved.
For 2020, the EU has committed to cutting its emissions to 20% below 1990 levels. This commitment is one of the headline targets of the Europe 2020 growth strategy and is being implemented through a package of binding legislation. They are well on their way to meet this target as well.
So to be clear the US isn`t a leader by a long shot. They are a follower and a bad one at that. And with the coming budget cuts to science and innovation, education etc things are likely to get worse.
Do you believe that the weather will be better for the USA if CO2 levels are at 450 ppm in 50 years instead of at 460 ppm? Why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this17. sault in reply to Carlyle 10:53 AM 2/8/13
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes. A carefully crafted sentence that does not actually claim that it was solar power that they exported to France. In fact it could not have been. The sun absolutely refuses to shine at night & there was no wind at the time.
"a spokesperson for transit grid operator Amprion told him that ‘photovoltaics in southern Germany is currently helping us a lot.’”
It is easy to see each day, minute by minute if it is a good solar day. just enter the country of interest. Germany & Spain will be getting very little for their investment. Put the URL in your favourites & check it daily. Perhaps after a month you will share my pessimism. http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/?lat=42.81999969&lon=-0.50000000&zoom=8&pin=Astun%2c%20Spain&type=hyb&rad=0&wxsn=0&svr=0&cams=0&sat=1&sat.num=1&sat.spd=25&sat.opa=85&sat.gtt1=109&sat.gtt2=108&sat.type=IR4&riv=0&mm=0&hur=0
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this