The United States and International Climate Change Policy
Download
Report
Transcript The United States and International Climate Change Policy
Federalism to the Rescue:
U.S. State and Municipal
Climate Change Policy
Spring 2011 Jean Monnet Symposium
The Nexus of Global Climate Change and Energy:
Transatlantic Perspectives
Stanley J. Kabala, PhD
Center for Environmental Research and Education
Duquesne University
412-396-4233
[email protected]
Where We Find Ourselves
…On July 28, 2003, I called the threat of
catastrophic global warming the "greatest
hoax ever perpetrated on the American
people…“
U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe
(R-Okla), January 4, 2005
Where We Find Ourselves
McConnell Amendment to S. 493
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)
Identical to:
– S. 492 Energy Tax Prevention Act
– H.R. 910 Energy Tax Prevention Act
Possible vote on March 30, 2011
Where We Find Ourselves
Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (HR 910)
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich), Chair, Energy and Commerce Committee
Exempts CO2 and other heat-trapping gases from
CAA definition of “air pollutant”
Thus, in effect, overturns Massachusetts v. EPA
[Section 2, adding CAA Section 330(a), (b)(1)]
Repeals EPA’s ”endangerment” determination
[Section 2, adding CAA Section 330(b)(4)(A)]
Blocks EPA carbon pollution performance standards for:
– Power plants: 2.4 billion T C02/y (40% U.S. total)
– Oil refineries: hundreds of millions of tons
– Any industries
[Section 2, adding CAA Section 330(b)(1)(A), (b)(4)(K)]
Massachusetts v. EPA
Background
1999 petition to EPA
– regulate new vehicle GHG
– CAA “endangerment” of public health & welfare
2003 EPA denial of petition: No CAA authority to do so
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
– Plaintiff: 2 states, 3 cities, 2 terr., several NGOs
– Opposing: USEPA, auto and truck related groups
– Suit rejected because:
EPA Administrator has discretion re CAA
Plaintiffs lack standing
Massachusetts v. EPA
Supreme Court 5 - 4 decision April 2, 2007
Massachusetts had standing to sue
Ruling favor of petitioners on all 3 issues
– “Injury”:
Massachusetts loss of shoreline
– “Causation”:
Traceable to defendant
– “Redressability”: Regulation to reduce warming
Discretion: EPA Administrator’s judgment to on
policy issues
CAA Sec. 202 “sweeping definition”
– any air pollutant
– any substance
U.S. EPA Mandatory Reporting
of Greenhouse Gases Rule
(CFR 40 Part 98)
12/17/10
85 - 90% of U.S. GHG emissions
Emitters >25,000 MT/year
2010 reports due 9/30/11 (initially 3/31/11)
Data to be made public by end of 2011
“…Provide high-quality data” (to) help
industries & businesses…be more efficient and
save money, and be useful to Congress, state
agencies, NGOs, & public.” (SJK, ed.)
U.S. responses to Kyoto Protocol
1998 – 2006
1998 Byrd-Hagel Senate Resolution (S. Res. 98)
No harm to U.S. economy
Require action by LDCs
Adopted 95-0
“Don’t bother to send treaty to Senate for ratification”
2002
Bush Administration: Reduce GHG intensity 18% by 2012
2003
McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act
Cap GHG emissions
2006 Senate Amendment 866 (Bingaman, D-NM) adopted 53/44
National, mandatory, market-based limits to
slow, stop, and reverse growth of GHG emissions
without harming the U.S. economy
U.S. State Responses
The California Lead
2000: The Pavley Act
Premise:
40% California GHG emissions due
to passenger vehicles & light trucks
Goal:
30% GHG reduction over 8 years
for new autos and light trucks
Activation: Adopt by 1/1/2005
Enforce by 1/1/2006
In effect:
2009 model year
U.S. State Responses
The California Lead
June 2005: Executive Order of the Governor
GHG Emissions Reduction Targets
– 2010: 2000 Level
– 2020: 1990 Level (~25% below 2005)
– 2050: 20% of 1990 Level
U.S. State Responses:
The California Lead
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
Cap on GHG from major industrial sources
GHG listed in Kyoto Protocol
Penalties for non-compliance
Emissions reduction to 1990 level by 2020
CARB cap-and-trade program 2012 - 2020
U.S. Regional GHG Initiatives
New England Governors’ CCAP (2001)
GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2010
and 10% < 1990 levels by 2020
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (2003)
Stabilize CO2 emissions at 121.3 short tons
by 2015, reduce <105 short tons by 2020
Western Climate Initiative (2007)
GHG emissions 15% < 2005 levels by 2020
Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
Cooperative effort:
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New York, Rhode Island, Vermont
$860.9 million of CO2 permit sales
proceeds going toward strategic energy
programs
http://www.rggi.org/rggi
http://www.rggi.org/rggi_benefits
RGGI
Program design and approach
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Multi-state cap-and-trade program
Initial focus: CO2 only
Target: electricity generators >25 MW
Scheduled cap reduction: 2.5%/year
Reduction by 2018: 10%
Energy affordability and reliability considered
Tool: interstate trading of carbon credits
Expandable: more states, more allowances
Western Climate Initiative
Regional cap-and-trade system
Reduce GHG 15% below 2005 levels by 2020
State-specific goals and climate action plans
Signatories:
Arizona, British Columbia, California,
Manitoba, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon,
Ontario, Quebec, Utah, Washington
Implementation anticipated in January 2012
Western Climate Initiative
Western Climate Initiative
State GHG Emissions Goals
Short term
2101 – 2012
Medium term
by 2020
Long term
2040 – 2050
Arizona
-----
2000 levels
50% 2000 by 2040
Br. Columbia
-----
33% below 2007
-----
California
2000 levels
1990 levels
by 2010
80% 1990 by 2050
Manitoba
6% below 1990
6% below 1990
-----
New Mexico
2000 levels
by 2012
10% below 2000
75% 2000 by 2050
Oregon
Arrest growth
10% below 1990
75% below 1990
by 2050
Utah
-----
Set goals by 6/08
-----
Washington
-----
1990 levels
50% of 1990
by 2050
Safe Climate Act of 2007
HR 1590 (Henry Waxman, D-Ca.)
Emissions
2009
Frozen
2010 – 2020 Cut 2% per year, to 1990 levels
2020 – 2050 Cut 5% per year, to 80% < 1990 levels
Actions
Cap-and-trade program for largest polluters
Allowance sales proceeds to Climate Reinvestment Fund
EPA standards for vehicle GHG =/> California’s, tightened in
2014 and periodically thereafter
DOE national standards for electricity requiring:
– share from renewable sources to reach 20% by 2020
– utilities to obtain each year 1% of energy supply via
efficiency improvements to customer facilities
Renewable/Alternative Energy
Portfolio Standards
33 states and D.C
Colorado (2004)
California
30% by 2020
20% by 2010
33% by 2020 (3/28/11)
Maine
40% by 2017
New Jersey
22.5% by 2021
New York
29% by 2015
Penna. (2004)
18% by 2020
8% from tier 1 sources
10 % from tier 2 sources
Pennsylvania
Climate Change Response
Act 35 (2007)
850MW of solar power generated in Pa. by 2020
Utilities plan to meet alternative energy target
Alternative energy credits remain the property of alternative
energy system generating them
Pa. Climate Change Act, Act 70 (2008)
PADEP periodic reports
GHG emissions inventory
Climate change Advisory Committee
Voluntary GHG registry
Climate change action plan
Pa. Climate Change
Advisory Committee
Non-binding 2020 goal: GHG 30% < 2000
“Robust” 2020 policies: GHG =/< 38% 2000
Improved building energy efficiency
Expanded energy effic./conserv. programs
Improved/expanded public transportation
Enhanced land conservation, urban forestry
U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement
Launched 2/16/2005 (the day the
Kyoto Protocol came in to effect)
500 Mayors signed by 2007
Cities whose
mayors signed
the agreement
U.S. Mayors
Climate Protection Agreement
Participating cities commit to:
– Meet/beat Kyoto Protocol targets via anti-sprawl land-use
policies, urban forest restoration, information campaigns
– Urge state and federal action to meet/beat Kyoto Protocol
GHG emissions reduction for U.S.: 7% < 1990 by 2012
– Urge Congress to establish a national GHG emissions
trading system
http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.
htm
U.S. Climate Action Partnership
http://www.us-cap.org/
Members:
– Corporations
– Environmental
organizations
Goal:
– Strong federal legislation
requiring significant
reductions of GHG
Tool:
– Principles and
recommendations on on
climate change policy
U.S. Climate Action Partnership
Members
NGOs
– Environmental Defense
Fund
– Natural Resources
Defense Council
– Pew Center on Global
Climate Change
– The Nature
Conservancy
– World Resources
Institute
Corporations
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
AES
Alcoa
Alstom
Boston Scientific Corporation Chrysler
The Dow Chemical Company
Duke Energy
DuPont
Exelon Corporation
Ford Motor Company
General Electric
Honeywell
Johnson & Johnson
NextEra Energy
NRG Energy
PepsiCo
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Rio Tinto
Shell
Siemens Corporation
Weyerhaeuser
Pittsburgh Climate Initiative
Adopted by City Council in August 2008
2003: Pgh. emitted 6.6 million tons CO2
Goal: Cut GHG emissions 20% by 2023
Collaborative, multi-sectoral
– Municipal
– Community
– Business
– Higher Education
http://pittsburghclimate.org/
Local Response
ICLEI 5 milestone approach:
1.
Baseline emissions
inventory and forecast.
2.
Emissions reduction
target.
3.
Climate Action Plan.
4.
Policies/measures.
5.
Monitoring and
verification
PADEP Response
Local Government Greenhouse Gas Pilot Grant
Program
– ALLEGHENY COUNTY
Wilkins Township (with Forest Hills and Penn Hills)
Mt. Lebanon
– BUCKS COUNTY
Bucks County Multi-Municipal Program
– BUTLER COUNTY
Cranberry Township
– CENTRE COUNTY
Centre Region Greenhouse Gas Pilot Grant
– CRAWFORD COUNTY
Meadville
– DELAWARE COUNTY
Swarthmore Region
Wilkins Township et al
Municipal clients
Wilkins Twp., Pa.
Penn Hills, Pa.
Forest Hills, Pa.
Technical support
Duquesne University CERE
Products:
GHG inventories
Climate Action Plans
Local Response
Wilkins Township