Blog

In a recent paper for E3 Network, Elizabeth A. Stanton and Frank Ackerman present the seven key questions that the public should ask about any proposed climate legislation. The answers to these questions will determine whether the proposed legislation will be successful in reducing emissions and how it will impact households.

Today we tackle question one: are the emissions targets low enough to do the job?

According to the paper by Stanton and Ackerman:

Legislation before Congress in 2010 calls for emission reductions below 2005 levels on the order of 17 to 20 percent by 2020, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050. While reaching these targets would represent a big improvement over current practice, there are at least two problems. First, the targets allow a comparatively slow start, assuming that the pace of emission reduction will accelerate sharply after 2030. Second, even an 83 percent U.S. reduction by mid-century may not be enough to achieve the global emission reductions that are needed. It is at the looser end of IPCC recommendations, and current climate science suggests that tighter standards may be needed. In a previous study, we found that lowering carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations in the atmosphere from today’s 385 parts per million (ppm) to the recommended “safe” level of 350 ppm by 2200 would require reduction in emissions to 98 percent below 2005 by 2050, or massive use of carbon sequestration (primarily reforestation) to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere (Ackerman et al. 2009). Faster reductions will require tighter emission limits and, consequently, higher carbon taxes or prices, than the current legislative targets. This need not mean greater economic burdens: If household rebates are a large share of revenues, a high carbon price can still lead to net benefits for most households (Stanton and Ackerman 2010).

So how do recent Congressional proposals to cap carbon emissions measure up? 

Stanton and Ackerman conclude  that all of the proposed bills – Waxman-Markey, Cantwell-Collins, and Kerry-Lieberman – would have set greenhouse gas emission caps that are too high to meet the goals set by today’s climate science.