Enact a Carbon Tax, Not a Cap-and-Trade System

Summary.  The worldwide need to abate emissions of greenhouse gases is becoming more important with every passing year.  Nevertheless, the U. S. has never enacted federal legislation that would limit its emissions.   

This post describes a proposal for a cap-and-trade market mechanism to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the U. S., presented in a recent op-ed article.  Then cap-and-trade is compared with a direct tax or fee on carbon fuels. 

It is concluded that a carbon tax or fee is far more advantageous than a cap-and-trade mechanism, for its effectiveness, efficiency and freedom from the need to create a new bureaucracy to oversee its operation.  The revenues generated can be applied in a variety of ways that would be politically acceptable.  Adoption of a carbon tax or fee in the U. S. is strongly recommended. 

Introduction.  The nations of the world are currently on a path of emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) that risks putting humanity in great climatic peril by the end of this century.  A principal GHG is carbon dioxide (CO₂) emitted when we burn fossil fuels for energy.  Annual rates of emission while doing “business as usual” (which assumes no meaningful reductions) or only modest rate reductions lead to unacceptably high levels of total accumulated atmospheric GHGs.  It is this accumulated total (not the annual emissions rate) that determines the extent of global warming that we experience.  Thus, although it may sound virtuous to reduce annual emission rates, the new GHGs that are still emitted continue to accumulate to ever higher levels.  Only global emission rates approaching zero suffice to stabilize the global atmospheric GHG burden, leading to stabilization of global average temperature at some value higher than we have today.

The threat that GHGs posed to the world’s climate was already recognized in the 1990’s, and led to the United Nations-sponsored Kyoto Protocol that limits emissions among developed countries of the world. (Please find a Summary of Historical Developments in an earlier post.)  The U. S. never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and has failed to pass federal legislation to limit GHG emissions on at least two more recent occasions (see the Summary).

Federal policy to lower GHG emissions can rely on market-driven mechanisms, among others.  One such mechanism, a direct fee imposed on fossil fuels based on the amount of CO₂ emitted per unit of energy obtained, has been supported by many prominent commentators and experts.  Among these, most recently, are four Administrators of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appointed by Republican (i.e. the more conservative of the two American political parties) presidents (see the previous post). 

A second market approach is the cap-and-trade system.  Here we discuss a recent op-ed article calling for creation of a federal cap-and-trade mechanism.

Proposal to enact a federal cap-and-trade regime.  The New York Times published an op-ed article by Dirk Forrister (President and CEO of the International Emissions Trading Association) and Paul Bledsoe (Senior Fellow, Climate & Energy Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States) promoting a national cap-and-trade program for the U. S.  “Cap-and-trade” refers to imposing an upper limit (the “cap”) to the amount of GHGs, especially CO₂, that a physical facility can emit in a year, and trading of emission allowances between efficient facilities left with excess allowances and inefficient facilities needing extra allowances.  Caps are to be lowered year by year to enforce increased efficiency and lower overall emissions.  The authors extol this market mechanism as being “widely recognized as a cheaper way to lower emissions. [Because President Obama has had to use a regulatory mechanism instead, c]onsumers will pay a higher price for electricity as a consequence.”

The authors cite China’s pilot cap-and-trade market being set up in the city of Shenzhen as an example.  It will cover over 800 individual emission sources, both industrial facilities and municipal buildings, that are responsible for 40% of Shenzhen’s emissions.  The authors state that six more pilot projects are planned in China in the coming year.  They state that currently 20% of GHG emissions around the world occur in carbon pricing systems (they do not indicate whether only cap-and-trade mechanisms are used). 

The op-ed dismisses enactment of a direct carbon tax by surmising, without supporting evidence, that “the tax would probably be small and would not guarantee the reduction in emissions needed.”  The example presented further below rebuts this contention.  Nevertheless, Forrister and Bledsoe correctly state that revenues obtained either from a tax or from a market mechanism could be rebated to taxpayers or used to offset other taxes; still other uses for this new revenue have been proposed by other analysts.  They provide a useful summary of the rancorous political environment in the U. S. Congress that has prevented past attempts to enact cap-and-trade legislation from succeeding. 

Analysis

We need to lower GHG emissions.  The need to abate GHG emissions becomes more apparent with each passing day.  Man-made increases in GHG concentrations in our planet’s atmosphere are directly responsible for increased long-term global average temperature.  Higher temperature contributes to the severity and frequency of extreme climate and weather events that are harmful to human society, inflicting major costs that, in most countries, are borne by the taxpaying public.  Forrister and Bledsoe state “[a]s the costs of adaptation rise… inaction will become an untenable political position.”

A carbon fee or tax.  The previous post presents the case offered by four Republican former EPA administrators for a fee imposed directly on fossil fuels.  (A carbon fee or tax can be considered primarily a way of reducing demand for fossil fuels.)  Here the alternative, a cap-and-trade market which operates by limiting the amount of emissions, and therefore of the fuel use that generates them, is proposed.  (Cap-and-trade may be considered to operate primarily by limiting the supply of fuel.)  A direct fee or tax on fossil fuels is far more efficient and effective in limiting GHG emissions than is cap-and-trade. 

A carbon tax is legislated at the outset and remains in effect indefinitely.  (Only politically motivated tinkering in later years would lead to changes in the size of the tax.)  Importantly, a carbon tax can be imposed on all fossil fuels at the point of extraction from the earth.  For this reason a carbon tax easily covers the entire fossil fuel-based energy economy, including fuel for transportation.  Typically it would start at a low, relatively painless level, and grow in size year by year until it reaches a significant amount.  The added cost of fuel serves as an economic deterrent to its use.  The fee motivates consumers to adopt energy-efficiency and to use renewable energy.

A carbon tax is simple to administer.  It has led, for example, to striking increases in efficiency and decreases in fuel use when it is applied as a tax on gasoline fuel for motor vehicles. The graphic below

Source: New York Times presenting data from the U. S. Department of Energy and the World Bank; http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/11/business/Fuel-Taxes-and-Consumption.html?ref=business.

 

shows that per capita use of fuel for driving decreases as the size of the gas tax increases.  The U. S. has the lowest gas tax correlated with the highest amount of fuel used per capita. In Great Britain, on the other hand, the gas tax is about US$3.95 per U. S. gallon and very low fuel use per capita (but it is seen from the graphic that a similar increase in efficiency can be obtained for as low as about US$2.20 per U. S. gallon).

A cap-and-trade market, on the other hand, requires establishment of cumbersome new bureaucracies to operate.  It further needs to create a new trading market, usually including an auction facility, to buy and sell emission allowances.  Another bureaucracy is needed to work with “offsets”, the buying or selling of emission allowances based on emission credits beyond the actual jurisdiction of the region or nation involved.  Like any commodity market, this one is susceptible to abuse and manipulation by third party traders seeking profits but who are not directly connected with the energy economy.

Consider the example of Shenzhen, cited in the op-ed of Forrister and Bledsoe.  For each of the more than 800 facilities covered, officials must evaluate, and then verify, the GHGs emitted annually in order to be able to issue the correct number of emission allowances.  (Note that there is an incentive for a facility to overstate emissions in order to earn more allowances.)   Officials must account for allowances returned at the end of the year, and must verify that the current emission level for each facility agrees with the number of returned allowances.  Then in each succeeding year the allowances for each facility are reduced, and the cycle of measuring and verifying emissions, and matching those results with allowances, must be repeated.  Third party speculators, who are neither energy officials nor facility representatives, can enter the market for allowances and trade them in search of profit (or garnering losses) without regard for the underlying energy policy, potentially leading to windfalls or market crashes.

In addition, it may be difficult to work out a way to issue allowances for transportation fuel, since vehicles are not fixed emission sources, and are far more numerous than fixed facilities.

The European Union’s cap-and-trade market.  An example of a cap-and-trade regime which failed is found with the Emissions Trading System (ETS) of the European Union (EU).  The ETS was set up as the EU entered under the Kyoto Protocol in 2005.  It covers at least 11,000 individual emission sources across the EU.  At the outset, allowances were determined by each EU nation independently.  Allowances were granted, in certain cases, in excess of need or previous national experience.  The auction market in the initial years established early prices as high as almost €30 per tonne of CO₂ equivalents (tonne, a metric ton) in the middle of 2006, which then fell, for a variety of reasons including the onset of the recession, to about €0/tonne one year later.  As the allocation mechanism improved prices recovered, but by 2012 they were again low, less than €4/tonne, because recessionary conditions across the EU led to a surplus of available allowances.  The EU Parliament voted in April 2013 not to lower the number of allowances, thus essentially generating a “potential death blow” to the ETS.  The Parliament relented a few months later.  This example shows how cap-and-trade is susceptible to political interference, preventing attainment of its objectives. 

(Update Aug. 22, 2013) California’s cap-and-trade program also exemplifies the bureaucratic and operational difficulties identified above.  In its fourth quarterly auction of allowances, the price for the largest emitters was US$12.22 per metric ton of CO₂-equivalent, about 12.7% lower than the previous sale.  An impression of the complex bureaucracy that administers the program may be seen in the state’s Quarterly Auction 4 Summary Results Report.  It refers to setting auction pricing and verifying eligibility of participants in the auction. 

“ARB staff and the Market Monitor carefully evaluated the bids, and determined that the auction process and procedures complied with the requirements of the Cap-and-Trade Regulation….

‘The Market Monitor found that the auction was cleared consistent with the auction clearing rules…[and] confirmed the clearing price and clearing quantities….’”

This document provides further details of the auction that reflect the intensive administrative effort needed to conduct it. 

California’s Cap-and-Trade system covers 359 individual entities whose emissions are higher than the cutoff of 25,000 metric tons per year.  (Link here and then click on the link “Updated List of Covered Entities”.)  Emissions and allowances for each must be monitored and verified.

Conclusion 

It is highly recommended that the U. S. enact a national tax on the carbon in fossil fuels, beginning at a low level and increasing annually.  Its operation is highly effective and very efficient.  It is easily extended to include the entire fossil fuel economy in its operation.  It readily constrains the use fossil fuels by reducing demand on the part of consumers.

Cap-and-trade is shown here to be cumbersome, requiring an extensive bureaucracy operating throughout the lifetime of such a program.  The ETS of the EU has been ineffective.  Cap-and-trade is susceptible of abuse and likely would not cover the transportation segment of the energy economy.

With either mechanism, the revenues obtained can be rebated to taxpayers, or can be used to offset other taxes.  Other possible uses include reducing the national debt or supporting research, development and deployment of innovative renewable energy technologies.  Allocating the funds in ways such as these should ease the political barriers to enactment in the U. S.

© 2013 Henry Auer

Four Republicans Propose a Fee on U. S. Carbon Sources

Summary.  Four former Administrators of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, all of whom served under Republican presidents, are urging the members of the U. S. Congress to overcome partisan divisions and pass meaningful legislation to combat global warming.  They state that science clearly shows the planet is warming, and point out that further inaction is harmful because the window of time remaining for action is shrinking.  They observe that President Obama’s Climate Action Plan is noteworthy and should be endorsed by the Congress.  Additionally they propose a fee on use of carbon fuels as an effective means for abating the rate of emissions and consequent worsening of global warming.  Here, we present an example of the effectiveness of a tax on gasoline fuel in reducing consumption.

Carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, once emitted, and remains for very long times without being removed by natural processes or human technology.  Therefore it is necessary to reduce the rate of emissions in order to keep the accumulated level as low as possible, and limit the harms wrought by excessive global warming.  The fee on carbon use proposed by the Administrators goes a long way to accomplishing this goal.

 

Introduction.  Over the past few decades the United States has never enacted a legislated national energy policy to combat global warming.  Since the late 1990’s plans operating around the world at the international, multinational and national levels to curb the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have been implemented.  Prominent among these was the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement among industrialized countries negotiated under the United Nations.  These programs have been undertaken recognizing that human activity is responsible for the accumulation of GHGs and that the world’s nations must work together to mitigate the rate of emissions and the total accumulated level of GHGs in the atmosphere.  The U. S. Senate, in contrast, rejected American participation in the Kyoto Protocol.  Only in recent years have certain American states, individually or by interstate regional agreements, embarked on policies to reduce GHG emission rates.  (Please find a Summary of Historical Developments in the previous post.)

In the absence of Congressional action, President Obama presented his Climate Action Plan in June 2013.  It contains a large number of specific initiatives grouped as cutting carbon pollution, protecting the country from the impacts of global warming, and working internationally to fight global warming.  Some of the policies can be implemented by executive action, whereas others require budgetary action by the Congress.

This post describes a proposal for a fee on carbon sources set forth by four prominent Republicans (i.e., members of the more conservative of the two U. S. political parties) with strong credentials in setting environmental policy.

Four Republicans, all former Administrators of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), propose a fee on carbon-containing sources of energy.  They all were appointed by Republican presidents.  Their proposal appeared in the New York Times on August 2, 2013.  The former Administrators are William D. Ruckelshaus, who served from the founding of the EPA in 1970 under Republican President Richard Nixon to 1973, and again from 1983 to 1985; Lee M. Thomas, who served from 1985 to 1989; William K. Reilly, who served from 1989 to 1993; and Christine Todd Whitman, who served from 2001 to 2003.

The Administrators write:

“…we have a message that transcends political affiliation: the United States must move now on substantive steps to curb climate change, at home and internationally.

“There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm….

“The costs of inaction are undeniable. The lines of scientific evidence grow only stronger and more numerous. And the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller: delay could mean that warming becomes ‘locked in.’

“…President Obama’s June climate action plan lays out achievable actions that would deliver real progress….

“Rather than argue against his proposals, our leaders in Congress should endorse them and start the overdue debate about what bigger steps are needed and how to achieve them — domestically and internationally.”

The Administrators declare that the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to use market-based approaches, such as a fee on carbon, to provide the incentives to migrate away from use of carbon-based fuels.  As alluded to in the quotes above, they recognize that the present political climate in the U. S. Congress makes this an unrealistic policy to promote.  They support the administrative and legislative policies promoted by President Obama in his energy policy speech as a meaningful strategy in the absence of Congressional action.

The Administrators conclude

“More will be required…we must continue efforts to reduce the climate-altering pollutants that threaten our planet. The only uncertainty about our warming world is how bad the changes will get, and how soon. What is most clear is that there is no time to waste.”

 

Analysis

It is highly significant in the U. S. policy setting that four Republican Administrators of the EPA, serving under the Republican presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, have come together to urge taking strong legislative action to combat global warming.  They understand the indisputable scientific imperative that global warming constitutes a major threat to the wellbeing of the planet.  They recognize the need to “transcend” political differences.  They urge immediate action because “the window of time remaining to act is growing smaller”.   Finally, they realize that President Obama’s announced policy, while making worthy steps to combat global warming, still requires the forceful action that a legislated policy, such as a fee on carbon, would generate.

Climate scientists have shown incontrovertibly that a) atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO₂), have been rapidly increasing since the start of the industrial revolution; b) the growth in CO₂ levels is due to mankind’s burning of fossil fuels for energy; and c) the greenhouse effect from these greenhouse gases produces increases in the long-term global average temperature, as well as drastic decreases in the number of extreme cold days coupled with profound increases in the number of extreme hot days.  These temperature extremes lead to extreme weather and climate events that are harmful to those who are affected by them.

CO₂ is a waste product whose costs are not reflected in the purchase price that we pay when we use fossil fuels.  Our purchases compensate fuel companies for the costs involved in extracting and marketing fuels, and include profit accruing to them for their efforts.  But the costs of dealing with its waste, namely CO₂, are not included; the cost of this waste constitutes an “externality” that fuel companies do not charge us for.  On the other hand, there are examples in our daily life where we, the consumers, are directly charged for the costs of waste that we generate.  These include garbage removal and disposal, and waste water treatment.  Our use of fossil fuels should follow the models given by examples such as these.  A fee on carbon use would accomplish this.

Global warming induces extremes of weather and climate that adversely affect human wellbeing and socioeconomic state as a result of the calamities that result.  The Administrators point out that at a time in the near future which cannot be predicted with certainty, the Earth’s climate system could reach a point at which greenhouse warming creates reinforcing effects that promote even more warming.  This underlies their caution that warming could become “locked in”.  In addition, climate scientists point out that the longer we wait to begin meaningful abatement measures, the more intensive, and expensive, such measures will necessarily be to make up for lost opportunities.

In reaction to such unpredictable events governments and other social structures are called on to spend vast amounts of money to repair damage and restore facilities.  They also react by undertaking extensive preventive infrastructure projects that were unforeseen before devastation struck.  It thus makes economic and sociological sense to minimize the effects of global warming by combating its causes, i.e., by migrating away from use of fossil fuels as fast as possible.

The Administrators recommend a market-based mechanism for accomplishing this, and suggest a fee on use of carbon fuels for this purpose.  A carbon fee is highly efficient and effective in reducing use of fossil fuels.  It is simple to administer, and leads, for example, to striking increases in efficiency and decreases in fuel use when it is applied as a tax on gasoline fuel for motor vehicles. The graphic below

Sources: New York Times presenting data from the U. S. Department of Energy and the World Bank; http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/11/business/Fuel-Taxes-and-Consumption.html?ref=business

 

shows that per capita use of fuel for driving decreases as the size of the gas tax increases.  The U. S. has the lowest gas tax correlated with the highest amount of fuel used per capita. In Great Britain, on the other hand, the gas tax is about US$3.95 per U. S. gallon (but it is seen from the graphic that a similar increase in efficiency can be obtained at a much lower tax level of about US$2.20 per U. S. gallon).  Ford, the American car maker, sells a model of its compact Focus there whose efficiency is 72 miles per U. S. gallon.  A Focus model sold in the U. S. gets only 33 miles per U. S. gallon.  

 

Conclusion

 

Former EPA Administrators Ruckelshaus, Thomas, Reilly and Whitman all served in the administrations of Republican presidents.  They have come together to urge the members of the U. S. Congress to move beyond partisan posturing and unite behind meaningful legislation to combat global warming.  They point out that the science underlying global warming is incontrovertible, that the time for significant action is shortening, and that legislative action is required, for example to set up a fee for use of fossil fuels.  Their sentiments are reasoned and convincing, and should be acted upon as soon as possible. 

The status of the global climate worsens with each day of inaction.  That loss cannot be recovered at a later date because CO₂ emissions, on the time scale in question, remain in the atmosphere and accumulate higher and higher.  We in the U. S., independently and in concert with other major greenhouse gas emitters, must act as soon as possible to keep the accumulated CO₂ level as low as possible going forward.

© 2013 Henry Auer

President Obama: Combating Global Warming vs. All of the Above Energy

Summary.  The United States has never passed a law enshrining a national policy to combat global warming.  In the absence of Congressional action, President Obama presented his Climate Action Plan in a speech and accompanying written program on June 25, 2013.  It contains a large number of specific initiatives grouped as cutting carbon pollution, protecting the country from the impacts of global warming, and working internationally to fight global warming.

The Action Plan contains many worthy features, some of which can be put into operation by administrative action, and others requiring budgetary action by the Congress.  It complements actions already taken to make cars and electric generating plants operate with greater fuel efficiency.

The President has also promoted an “All of the Above” energy policy which includes expanding domestic production of fossil fuels.  New fossil fuel uses make certain that GHG emissions will continue for decades.  This policy is incompatible with his newly announced Climate Action Plan, which seeks to reduce GHG emissions.  In order to minimize the harms arising from worsening global warming the President should abandon his “All of the Above” energy policy and expand his Climate Action Plan.

 

Introduction. The United States has never enacted a comprehensive national global warming policy.  Since the late 1990’s there have been some plans operating at the international, regional and national levels to curb the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere.  These programs have been undertaken recognizing that human activity is responsible for the accumulation of GHGs and that the world’s nations must work together to mitigate emissions.  The U. S. Senate, in contrast, rejected participation in the Kyoto Protocol, the major international agreement.  Only in recent years have certain American states, individually or by interstate agreements, embarked on policies to reduce GHG emissions.  (Please find a Summary of Historical Developments at the end of this post.)

President Obama delivered a major speech on energy policy (video and transcript) on June 25, 2013.   The President, speaking to an audience of college students, stated

“So the question is not whether we need to act [to address global warming]. The overwhelming judgment of science … has put all that to rest. Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including… some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. They've acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.

“So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late. And how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren.

“As a President, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act.”

The President pointed out that confronting global warming

“is a challenge that does not pause for partisan gridlock [in the U. S. Congress]. It demands our attention now. And this is my [three-part] plan to meet it – [1] a plan to cut carbon pollution; [2] a plan to protect our country from the impacts of [global warming]; and [3] a plan to lead the world in a coordinated assault on a [warming planet].”

In conjunction with the speech the White House issued an extended description of his proposals at the same time.  These encompass both executive actions that the Administration can put in place on its own, as well as spending programs, requiring enactment by Congress, that address global warming.  These are incorporated into the President’s budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014.  We summarize important features of President Obama’s three-point program here.

Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.  The administration will finalize pending rules limiting emissions from large new electric power plants and will formulate comparable rules for power plants already built.  The President proposes to double U. S. production of energy from renewable sources by 2020.  For example, public lands will be used to construct significant new renewable energy generating projects.  New efficiency standards for federal buildings using performance-based contracts, and for retail appliances, should contribute to significant reductions in emissions by 2030.  Similarly new incentives to increase energy efficiency of commercial and industrial buildings are planned.

Protecting the U. S. from the impacts of global warming: measures undertaken to adapt to damaging effects of global warming that are already occurring.   The President will promote new policies to protect areas affected by Hurricane Sandy from future flood damage, and will extend flood-risk reduction to all federally funded projects, such as coastal highways.  In recognition of the severe drought that affected portions of the Midwest in 2011 and 2012, the Administration will provide science-based knowledge that helps farmers, ranchers and citizens to overcome hazards and damage from drought and wildfire.  Also, the FY 2014 budget itemizes inter-agency spending for the third U. S. National Climate Assessment.

Leading the world in a coordinated assault on a warming planet.   The President recognizes that global warming is an international challenge, since the harmful impacts of warming are felt worldwide.  The Administration will work toward achieving international action to lower greenhouse gas emissions and to help nations in need to prepare for adverse effects of global warming.  It will develop or expand international initiatives, including two-party talks between the U. S. and major emitters such as China, India and Brazil.  It is also pursuing a United Nations agreement by 2015 to follow the expired Kyoto Protocol, for implementation by 2020.  Since one-third of global emissions arises from non-fossil fuel activities such as deforestation and land use practices, the Administration will seek to spread forest preservation and replanting activities in affected countries.  Worldwide fossil fuel subsidies amount to US$500 billion a year.  The U. S. is advocating eliminating subsidies, including the U. S. fossil fuel subsidy. 

Analysis

 President Obama unveiled his policy to combat global warming in his address of June 25, 2013 and the accompanying “President’s Climate Action Plan” of June 2013. 

The Climate Action Plan includes an extensive array of detailed administrative initiatives and proposals for new programs that require budgetary approval by the U. S. Congress.  A selection of the policy’s actions has been summarized here.  Its many new programs and policies represent affirmative responses to the perils presented by worsening global warming, in the face of the repeated inability of the U. S. Congress over the last 15 years to come together to enact an integrated national global warming policy (see the Summary of Historical Developments below).  The proposed actions complement a major increase in automobile fuel efficiency that have already been announced, as well as anticipated new regulations limiting GHG emissions by large newly constructed and existing electric generation plants.

President Obama’s Plan to combat global warming, including the emissions limits, represents an important first step to create a comprehensive, meaningful climate policy at the national level.  It is significant in many ways.  We all have, as members of the community of humankind, an obligation to protect and preserve our planet for ourselves and for future generations.  The Plan’s programs will lead to creation of many new jobs, and promote formation of new enterprises, thus helping expand our economy.  It formulates a comprehensive set of policy actions that address abatement of emissions and adaptation to perils already under way at the national level.  These actions promote the standing of the U. S. among nations as making a serious effort to address global warming.  Capitalizing on this positive standing, the Plan sets forth initiatives to secure multinational, and ultimately worldwide international, agreements among major emitting nations.  It also seeks to assist other nations inadvertently harmed by global warming, to abate its progress and to provide assistance to help accommodate to its harms.

As President Obama noted in his speech, climate scientists agree that man-made GHGs that accumulate in the atmosphere cause a warming of our planet.  Global warming brings with it severe strains to human endeavor, ranging from rains and floods, to heat and drought, to sea level rise that causes coastal flooding in areas that had been secure in the past. 

A principal GHG, carbon dioxide (CO₂), and other GHGs as well, persist in the atmosphere for a century or more once emitted; they are not cleansed by any natural process.  Ever since humans began burning fossil fuels in the industrial revolution, the level of CO₂ in the atmosphere has been higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.  The rate of accumulation of additional CO₂ is now about 100 times faster than has occurred in the geological past from natural processes.   For all these reasons, the longer the nations of the world delay combating global warming, the more difficult it will be to achieve results.

In view of these scientific findings, President Obama’s more general energy policy, enunciated as an “All of the Above” policy, is counterproductive.  “All of the Above” promotes expanded domestic production of fossil fuels while at the same time fostering expansion of renewable energy sources.  But the U. S. generates far more energy from fossil fuels than it does from renewables.  In recent years production of natural gas has been expanding rapidly, and new drilling for offshore oil is being allowed to proceed.  Oil pipelines are growing and a major pipeline, the XL project, for transporting Canadian oil originating from tar sands is being weighed for approval. 

But we must remember: every new fossil fuel facility has a lifetime of, say, 40 years or so, and so will continue to emit CO₂ throughout that lifetime, worsening the atmospheric burden and making global warming more severe.  Every policy should be considered according to the criterion of whether it abates emissions or contributes more.  We must remember: we can slow the rate of accumulating more GHGs in the atmosphere, but we are powerless at present to reduce the amount already accumulated.  The atmospheric GHG “bathtub” keeps on filling to higher and higher levels.  “All of the Above” continues filling the “bathtub”.   It is not a viable policy, and is incompatible with the President’s climate speech of June 25.  Our energy economy should have only one objective, namely, to reduce the additional accumulation of GHGs as rapidly as possible.

Summary of Historical Developments

The Kyoto Protocol (see this post) was negotiated under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and was completed in 1997.  Under its terms, the developed countries of the world agreed to reduce their emissions of GHGs by prescribed amounts by 2012, the end of the Protocol’s lifetime.  The Protocol explicitly excluded developing countries, including nations like China, India and Brazil, from its requirements, however, on the premise that this group of nations needed energy from all sources to raise their standards of living.  For this and other reasons the U. S. Senate voted 95-0 not to consider the treaty for ratification, so that the U. S. in fact has not been bound by its terms.

Upon ratification by a sufficient number of subscribers, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect in 2005.  Under its terms, most participating states undertook to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions below their emission levels of 1990 by 8%, during the commitment period, 2008-2012.

As of 1997 developing countries had very low levels of economic activity, and emitted very small amounts of greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide).  Since then, however, the principal developing countries, such as China and India, have expanded dramatically, and have become major contributors to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.  China overtook the U. S. in total amount of emissions around 2009, and now emits the most of any country on earth.

The European Union even before the effective date of 2005 set its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in place to limit GHG emissions through 2020, using a cap and trade market mechanism.  (Unfortunately the ETS has not succeeded in pricing carbon emissions high enough to serve as an incentive to lower emissions.)

The United States has never enacted a national emissions regime.  The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 was intended to limit GHG emissions by establishing a national cap-and-trade mechanism for trading emissions allowances.  Their proposal failed in the Senate by 43-55, although the vote was considered to reflect a growing bipartisan appreciation of the need for action on the issue.  In 2009 the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act by a vote of 219-212.  Its principal feature likewise was a cap-and-trade emissions trading system resembling the European Union’s ETS.  The U. S. Senate failed to consider the House bill for passage, and it never became law.

The U.  S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was obligated to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act in 2007, noting that the “harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized.  The Government’s own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens” many harmful and detrimental effects.  (Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.; 549 U.S. 497  (2007)).

Accordingly, following the requirements of the Clean Air Act, after its administrative review, the EPA issued its Endangerment Finding that six important greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations”.  It also issued its Cause or Contribute Finding, noting that emissions of these gases from new motor vehicles contribute to this harmful greenhouse gas pollution.  These findings affirm the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

President Bush raised vehicle fuel efficiency requirements in 2007, by signing into law the Energy Independence and Security Act.  The law increased the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard (CAFÉ), requiring that the average reach 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020.  This was the first legislated change in the CAFÉ standard since the efficiency standard was created in 1975.

The Obama administration further raised automotive efficiency standards on August 25, 2012.  The CAFÉ standard for cars and light trucks is set to reach an average level of 54.5 mpg by 2025.  This would represent a doubling of fuel efficiency from current levels.  It is important to note that limiting CAFÉ standards recognizes that transportation vehicles using internal combustion engines are mobile, point sources of GHG emissions.  This renders it essentially impossible to collect and store the emitted GHGs.

EPA is preparing to regulate emissions from large capacity power generation plants.  A pendingrule would limit emissions, only from newly constructed large plants that burn fossil fuels, to 1000 pounds of CO₂/MW-hr of energy produced.  This limit is set so that gas-fired plants and coal-burning plants that capture and store CO₂ (see this post  on capture and storage) readily meet the limit.  A coal-burning plant without capture and store would not satisfy the limit.  Although the rule was originally intended to be issued in April 2013, the Obama administration postponed issuing it indefinitely in order to respond to comments from the power industry that the rule’s standards could not be met with available methods, according to the New York Times.   Since new coal-fired plants without capture and storage cannot meet the proposed rule, many affected politicians and the coal industry have opposed it.   Its revised version has been sent for final review at the White House and revision by the EPA, by late September 2013.

President Obama directed the EPA to begin writing similar regulations that would cover existing power plants in his Climate Action Plan.

 

© 2013 Henry Auer

Public Attitudes on Global Warming and Their Political Ramifications

Summary.  A survey of Americans in spring 2011 shows that almost 40% are grouped as Alarmed or Concerned about global warming. Many of them understand that greenhouse gases arising from burning fossil fuels are responsible for global warming.  10% of respondents are Dismissive of global warming, so that they feel that human activity is not responsible for it.  Those surveyed understand that many remedial actions can be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The personal attitudes reflected in the survey results are mirrored in the way people identify with the political parties active in the U. S.

Introduction.  In the United States, political action to establish a framework addressing global warming under law has so far not been possible.  In spite of persistent efforts by environmental groups supporting an environmental policy law, other interests have opposed this effort, seeking to weaken or defeat proposed legislation. 

In such a polarized political environment, it is important to understand the opinions of the public on this issue.  This post presents the results of a survey of Americans on the topic of global warming.  A. Leiserowitz and his collaborators at Yale and George Mason Universities have been conducting public opinion surveys on questions of global warming and energy policy for several years.  Their previous survey was discussed in a post on this site in March 2011.  Selected results of their latest surveys, released within the past month, are summarized here.

Six Classes of Response to Global Warming Among Americans.  Leiserowitz and coworkers classified Americans into six groups in 2008, based on their attitudes concerning global warming and a need, if any was perceived, to address this issue.  They term these groups the “Six Americas”.

Alarmed Americans fully accept that global warming is real and carries serious consequences.  They already take measures to address it.

Concerned people likewise are convinced of the reality of global warming and its significance, but have not personally engaged in combating it.

Cautious members of the nation, while understanding that global warming may be a problem, are not convinced it is occurring, and do not feel a need to engage the issue.

Disengaged Americans do not give serious thought to global warming and indicate a lack of knowledge about the issue. 

Doubtful people are divided among those who believe it is occurring, those who feel it is not, and others who do not have an opinion.  Many believe global warming, if in fact it is occurring, arises from natural rather than man-made causes.  They also believe its effects are not a hazard to humanity.

Dismissive Americans feel that global warming is not happening, and that the issue does not raise a threat to humanity or life on earth.  They strongly feel no action to combat global warming is needed.

A Survey of Public Opinion on Climate Change.  Leiserowitz and coworkers (see Note 1 below) conducted a detailed survey of 981 American adults in the spring of 2011. 

Using the groups above that they already characterized, Leiserowitz and coworkers classify Americans in six classes of belief on global warming as shown in the graphic below.  39% are grouped as Alarmed or Concerned.  50% are

Source: Leiserowitz and coworkers. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/SixAmericasMay2011.pdf

classed as Cautious, Disengaged or Doubtful, indicating an absence of a strong feeling about global warming and humanity’s role in its origins.  10% are Dismissive. (It is presumed that rounding errors lead to the total being less than 100%.)

The overall level of concern and feeling that action is needed among Americans follows their classification among the six groups; this has not changed significantly over three years (see the graphic below).

Certainty that Global Warming is Occurring, by Group and Date Surveyed

Certainty about the reality of global warming was measured on a 9-point scale, where 9 = extremely sure that global warming is occurring; 8 = very sure that global warming is occurring; 7 = somewhat sure that global warming is occurring; 6 = not at all sure that global warming is occurring; 5 = don't know;  4 = not at all sure that global warming is not occurring; 3 = somewhat sure that global warming is not occurring; 2 = very sure that global warming is not occurring; and 1 = extremely sure that global warming is not occurring.  For each class, points for surveys taken November 2008, January 2010, June 2010 and May 2011 are graphed.

Source: Leiserowitz and coworkers. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/SixAmericasMay2011.pdf

Cause of Global Warming.  Three-fourths of Americans in the Alarmed and Concerned groups believe global warming arises from human activities.  On the other hand, among the Doubtful and Dismissive groups, 85% believe it has natural origins or is not happening at all.  Overall, 47% of all Americans believe global warming is caused by man, and 36% believe it is caused by natural changes in the environment.

Effects of Global Warming.  Americans believe global warming will affect people in other parts of the world, and people in future generations, as opposed to affecting Americans at the present time.  Believing in high levels of risk is very prevalent among the Alarmed and Concerned groups, and is absent (0%) among Dismissives.

Impacts in the U. S.  About one-half of Americans think that global warming is already worsening environmental effects in the U. S., causing coastline erosion, flooding, drought, and hurricanes.  A majority believe global warming will increase deaths and injuries in the future from such events as floods, hurricanes, winter storms and wildfires.

Support for Global Warming Policies Among Americans.  In a related survey of 1,010 Americans by Leiserowitz and coworkers in the spring of 2011, opinions on various possible policy initiatives were assessed (see Note 2), without paying attention to the six classes which were the focus of the Six Americas survey.

Priorities for the President and Congress.  The survey asked respondents whether they think developing sources of clean energy should be a low, medium, high, or very high priority for the president and Congress, and whether they think that global warming should be a low, medium, high, or very high priority for the president and Congress.  The results, shown in the graphic below, indicate that over 90% of surveyed Americans believe that clean energy is at least a medium priority (31% favoring a very high priority),



Source: Leiserowitz and coworkers.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PolicySupportMay2011.pdf

and that over 70% of respondents think global warming should be at least a medium priority (13% favoring a very high priority).

Who in Public Life Should Act to Address Global Warming?  The survey asked which segments in the American economic and political world should be called upon to take measures to address global warming, and by how much.  Respondents could choose among the possibilities of “Much more”, “More”, “Currently doing the right amount”, “Less”, and “Much less”.  The results are shown in the graphic below.

Source: Leiserowitz and coworkers.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PolicySupportMay2011.pdf

Outside of governmental agents, respondents felt that corporations and industry, and citizens themselves, are the groups that hold the greatest responsibility for taking action, independent of government intervention.  For  these two groups, at least 63% of respondents felt they should engage in more, or much more, action.  From 57% down to 52% of respondents felt that, in turn, the U. S. Congress, the President, state governors, state legislators, and local government officials, should undertake more or much more initiatives to address global warming. 

More than three-quarters of respondents felt that it was somewhat, very, or extremely important to protect against the harmful effects of global warming on the water supply, the public’s health, agriculture, forests, wildlife, coastlines, sewer systems, and public property.

Political Party Affiliations and Policy.  Depending on the question asked, the policy positions differ sharply, depending on the political party that respondents subscribe to.  Democrats (more liberal), Independents, and Republicans (more conservative) have diminishing sense of priority for global warming as an issue (see the graphic below).

Source: Leiserowitz and coworkers.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PolicySupportMay2011.pdf

On the other hand, all three party affiliations reflect a much higher priority for promoting clean energy (see the graphic below).

Source: Leiserowitz and coworkers.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PolicySupportMay2011.pdf

At least 85% of respondents in all three party affiliations confer a medium, high, or very high priority on promoting clean energy.  To this reporter, on a practical level, this preference for favoring clean energy policies while (for Independents and Republicans) partly opposing policies to address global warming is inconsistent.  By and large, the actual policies and practices that successfully lead to developing a clean energy economy likewise lead to combating the emission of greenhouse gases that produce global warming.  Thus favoring clean energy policies should also lead respondents to favor policies that combat global warming.

This observation is consistent with a consideration of detailed questions in the survey on practices that might be implemented, some of which are presented below.  In many of the cases, there is moderate to strong support for the policy regardless of political persuasion.  Those who support these policy measures across the political spectrum should equally favor clean energy and fighting global warming.  (For other specific policy suggestions, however, differences based on political party still remain.)

How much do you support or oppose requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20% of their electricity from wind, solar, or other renewable energy sources, even if it cost the average household an extra $100 a year?  (Here 42% of Republicans somewhat or strongly oppose the policy.)

How much do you support or oppose signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90% by the year 2050? (Here Independents and Republicans show significant opposition to the treaty.)

How much do you support or oppose funding more research into renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power?

How much do you support or oppose providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy efficient vehicles or solar panels?

How much do you support or oppose increasing taxes on gasoline by 25 cents per gallon and returning the revenues to taxpayers by reducing the federal income tax?  (Strong to very strong opposition to this policy across all parties.)

How much do you support or oppose paying 5% more on your monthly utility bill to get your electricity from renewable energy sources, like wind or solar?

How much do you support or oppose regulations requiring any new home to be more energy efficient. This would increase the initial cost by about $7,500, but save about $17,000 in utility bills over 30 years?

Conclusions.  On the basis of survey results Leiserowitz and coworkers classify Americans into six groups based on their concern, or lack of concern, about global warming. 39% are grouped as Alarmed or Concerned about global warming, believing that global warming is happening and that human activity is responsible.  At the other extreme, 10% are Dismissive, claiming that global warming does not exist, and that no action needs to be taken to address it.

In a related survey, Leiserowitz and coworkers find that a large majority of Americans feel that developing clean energy is a priority for our national leaders, but that global warming is less so.  More than 60% of respondents believe corporate and industrial entities, as well as private citizens, should address global warming; a slightly lower proportion believe that government officials should do so.

When classed according to political party affiliation, Americans differ widely when asked to consider global warming as an issue, with 50% of Republicans (more conservative) giving global warming a low priority as an issue.  If described as promoting clean energy, however, the difference between parties largely disappears.

Thus it appears that attitudes about global warming, and about policies that might relieve some of its harmful effects, are driven by considerations other than the scientific basis that underlies the issue.  This possible complication interferes with the need to develop a strong national policy dealing with global warming and energy policy.

                             ==================================

Note 1. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C. & Smith, N. (2011) Global Warming’s Six Americas, May 2011. Yale University and George Mason University.  New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.  http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/SixAmericasMay2011.pdf.

Note 2. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C. & Smith, N. (2011) Climate change in the American Mind: Public support for climate & energy policies in May 2011. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PolicySupportMay2011.pdf.

© 2011 Henry Auer