Climate Change Legislation: House Democrats Come Together

The news from House Democrats and the White House is that a deal has been cut on the Waxman-Markey climate bill. Will the changes be enough to avoid dangerous climate change? According to model calculations: yes and no.

In early April Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) released a discussion draft of their “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” which proposed to substantially cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions using a cap-and-trade system (see earlier post on the draft). I find it interesting that despite the fact that the bill is about curbing the emissions that contribute to climate change, the word “climate” does not appear in the bill's title. What do you suppose that is about?

The proposed bill entered the Committee on Energy and Commerce in April with some difficult issues still on the table – the most important of which is the allocation of emission allowances. I am told that earlier this week a compromise was reached during a marathon discussion between the president and key House Democrats. The details of that compromise are now awash in the press.

1. Emissions of greenhouse gases would be cut by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. (This is down from the 20 percent originally proposed in the discussion draft, but still larger than the 14 percent proposal by Obama.)
2. Emissions would be cut by 83 percent by 2050, unchanged from the discussion draft [pdf].

The major compromise was on the disposition of emission allocations or permits. A significant amount will initially be given away rather than auctioned in order to keep companies and representatives of carbon-intensive industries on board. Thirty-five percent of the permits will be given to power companies in the first 10 years and then phased out over the next five years. Another 15 percent will go to trade-intensive industries, such as paper, steel, cement, and aluminum. And three percent will go to the auto industry. The petroleum industry will reportedly get allocations as well; however, the exact amount is yet to be determined.

Projections are that the bill will get out of committee in a completely partisan vote with no Republican support. What happens then is up for grabs, although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is predicting passage this year.

So how does the bill stack up? Are the emissions cuts adequate? The answer is yes and no – it depends critically on what the rest of the world does.

Imagine Two Scenarios

• Scenario 1: Only the United States and the other Group of Eight countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom) cut emissions as prescribed in the Waxman-Markey compromise bill. Other countries, including China, continue to emit along a business-as-usual path.
• Scenario 2: All G8 and non-G8 countries adopt the same emission targets but the latter wait 10 years to get started. (In other words, they follow business as usual for 10 years and then cut emissions by 17 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2060.)

According to calculations by Prasad Kasibhatla, my colleague at Duke, Scenario 2 keeps carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations below 450 parts per million and the increase in global temperatures below two degrees Celsius throughout the century. (These two benchmarks -- 450 ppm and 2 degree -- have been identified as the generally accepted threshold for avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate. For more on this, see my previous posts here and here.) But in Scenario 1 CO2 maxes out at almost 580 ppm by the end of the century and temperatures cross two degrees Celsius at about 2090.

So the recent compromise looks to set a good course, but there’s a whole lot of work left. And just getting the bill through Congress, while huge, is but one step in a long trek to avoiding dangerous climate change. Ultimately the United States will have to lead on the international stage. And, oh yeah, there is one other little detail – achieving the emission cuts mandated in the bill.