July 2005
Despite US reticence, the outcome of the G8 Summit last week offers unprecedented clarity on the urgent need for action on global warming and a new basis for US commitment and action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. President Bush signed on to the G8 statement “Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development,” which says unequivocally that “climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe” and that human activities “contribute in large part to increases in greenhouse gases associated with the warming of the Earth’s surface.” In addition, for the first time, President Bush accepted the logical conclusion that something must be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, agreeing to “act with resolve and urgency now.”
The G8 leaders also adopted the “Gleneagles Plan of Action.” They identified a range of issues in need of attention and promised action in a number of key areas:
- Transforming the way we use energy
- Powering a cleaner future
- Promoting research and development
- Financing the transition to cleaner energy
- Managing the impact of climate change
- Tackling illegal logging
World leaders often find it easier to talk about the world’s energy and environmental problems than to take meaningful action. The Kyoto Protocol was a promising start, but without the United States – the world’s biggest greenhouse gas polluter – it will not go nearly far enough toward solving the increasingly urgent problem of global warming. Regrettably, although he signed the Gleneagles statement and plan of action, President Bush made it clear that he does not intend to change direction on US climate change policy.
In contrast, the US Senate acknowledged last month in an amendment to the energy bill that the United States is in need of “mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases.” This would seem to put the Senate on a collision course with the President. Given the continuing opposition of key Republicans in the House of Representatives to controls on greenhouse gases, the prospects for new US action on global warming still seem dim.
Without leadership from President Bush, it is difficult to see a way forward. Numerous government and private sector studies show that responding effectively to global warming entails little risk and offers some obvious advantages, including reduced demand for foreign oil, reduced pollution from thermal power plants, and increased economic efficiency. The President’s gloomy assessment that mandatory emissions reductions would hurt our economy and cost millions of jobs is simply untrue.
CIEL has worked with World Resources Institute and other organizations to develop a new approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions called action targets. Action targets would require companies and countries to reduce their emissions by an agreed percentage below “business-as-usual.” For example, an entity with a 20% action target would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% of a ton for each ton it emits. Action targets lend themselves to international trading, as reductions can be purchased from or sold to other countries.
The main advantage of utilizing action targets at both the domestic and international levels is that a company or country can commit to an action target knowing that the level of effort it must make to achieve its target cannot vary much under different scenarios of future economic growth. Action targets also can help avoid so-called “hot air” – allowance allocations that exceed the recipient’s actual need – as some action is always required, even if the target is set at a modest level.
Action targets are one way, but certainly not the only way, the United States could achieve the Senate’s objectives and meet its international commitments. What is important is that we act now. Global warming (as the Inuit and other peoples of the Arctic are rapidly discovering, much to their dismay) is upon us.