Work began in the Senate this week on a bill that represents the strongest official US action on climate change so far. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S.3036) passed its first hurdle, following a vote (74-14) allowing it to proceed to discussion. But it is expected to meet fierce opposition, and President Bush has already announced plans to veto it should the bill be presented to him.
The proposed legislation would implement a cap-and-trade system to reduce US dependence on fossil fuels, both to help ameliorate climate change and also to increase energy security. It plans to reduce US CO2 emissions by 70 percent of current levels by 2050 through a wide range of mechanisms, including a permit system, a carbon tax on gasoline, and subsidies and tax breaks for alternative technologies and retraining.
The permit system would work in a similar manner to the highly effective one that dealt with the issue of acid rain. Companies would be allocated a certain amount of carbon pollution each year, and would be free to sell some of this allocation to others if they didn't need it. Conversely, polluters wishing to exceed their allocation would need to purchase excess carbon credits.
The proposed gasoline tax would amount to 25¢ per gallon by 2030, a move that might not be welcomed by all. However, it pales in comparison to the recent rise in prices, a figure that is in effect equal to a $300/ton carbon tax of its own, with the difference being that increase goes to the oil producers' Swiss bank accounts, not a fund to help develop clean energy.
President Bush's opposition to the bill cites the damage that the bill's passage would have on the US economy. A recent EPA study suggests the impact would be to slow GDP by 7 percent by 2050, but since GDP growth is predicted to be well in excess of 200 percent by that time, it seems somewhat churlish. And as was highlighted by the Stern Report, the cost of inaction is likely to be far greater.
Whether the public will be happy to go along with the bill remains to be seen, but it is likely to meet with strong opposition. In general, while people are supportive of the need to do something to limit CO2, that support falls away once it becomes clear there will be an impact, either to their lifestyle or wallet, and the necessary changes will certainly have both.
The subject of tackling climate change came up repeatedly at the recent AAAS Science and Technology Policy Forum, with speakers from all sides of the political spectrum underlining the importance of action. Melinda Kimble, senior VP at the UN Foundation, put into context the kind of effort that would be required to reduce CO2 levels to an acceptable baseline by 2050, a reduction in CO2 of 7 gigatons/year. A reduction of 1 Gt/year could be achieved by doubling the efficiency of 2 billion cars from 30mpg to 60mpg, by reducing the energy use of all the buildings on the planet by 25 percent, through carbon capture and storage of 800 1 gigawatt coal-fired power stations, or by bringing online 700 new 1 GW nuclear power plants.
As you can imagine, this is nontrivial, and Kimble didn't think that incremental change, driven by free markets, will be able to achieve this. Instead, in her opinion a system of global governance is needed that has the needs of the global community, and not profit, as its driving force. One might reasonably expect that message to come from the UN, but even if you disagree with the conclusions, it doesn't negate the data.
Coming at the problem from the other side, former CIA director James Woolsey also focused on the importance of moving away from fossil fuels, both from a national security point of view as well as an environmental one. Woolsey pointed out that each year the US borrows $400 billion-500 billion a year to import oil, and that much of that money goes to nations whose interests are not always fully aligned with those of the US. He also drew attention to the lack of security surrounding the national grid, and illustrated his point with a rather funny (imaginary) conversation between the ghosts of John Muir, founder of the National Parks, and Gen. George Patton in an effort to show that "tree huggers and hawks" can find common ground.
Whether the Lieberman-Warner bill will pass is uncertain. Many senators are undecided, and there is expected to be strong opposition led by James Inhofe (R-OK), who remains convinced that climate change is a conspiracy to destroy the US economy. It does come on the heels of mounting action by states to begin addressing the problem, however, and all of the current Presidential hopefuls support CO2 limits.