White House Plan on Climate Change Not Up to the Challenge

The Bush administration’s new strategic plan for addressing climate change, released last Wednesday, disappointed those hoping for a dramatic turnaround on climate policy from the White House. Instead of charting a new course, the 244-page “Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan” restates the administration’s position that climate change is a long-term challenge and presents a single, under-funded, policy recommendation – federal support for the research and development of new technologies – as the solution to that challenge. At a time when the human, environmental and security costs of a carbon-dependent global economy are becoming increasingly apparent, the report fails to provide meaningful goals or effective policy solutions to guide the transition away from carbon-dependence.

The global economy currently depends on carbon-rich fossil fuels such as oil and coal for the vast majority of our energy and transportation needs. When these fuels are burned in our power plants, vehicles and factories they produce large amounts of energy. Unfortunately, they also release significant amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG’s), especially carbon dioxide (CO2), which build up in the atmosphere, causing global warming. In order to stop this climate change from happening, we must rapidly reduce global carbon emissions to prevent levels of GHG’s in the atmosphere from reaching critical levels. Leading climate scientist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science, James Hansen, predicts that, if current production levels of greenhouse gases like CO2 are not reduced, in 10 years a global tipping point will be reached, after which global warming will become unstoppable.

To avoid triggering irreversible climate change, countries must limit their production of GHG’s while continuing to meet people’s energy and transportation needs. This can be accomplished by increasing use of alternative technologies (such as solar and wind power, hybrid vehicles, and carbon sequestration) for energy production and transportation as well as by increasing the energy efficiency of various products, allowing them to provide the same service with smaller amounts of energy. Since the U.S. is responsible for producing one quarter of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of our climate policy will have an enormous impact on the success of efforts to stop global warming.

According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a national climate change policy relying on research and development (R&D) of alternative energy technologies alone, as the new plan does, will not effectively reduce GHG emissions. In fact, not only would this approach not result in cutting our contribution to climate change, in the long run it would actually make it more expensive for the U.S. to curb those emissions! The CBO report recommends that, instead of focusing on R&D alone, policymakers should take steps to make emitting carbon more expensive, reflecting the environmental, health and security costs of carbon emissions. This would drive a transition away from carbon-dependence by encouraging individuals and businesses to use conservation and more energy efficient technologies to reduce their energy consumption. It would also support the development and use of alternative energy technologies, by helping them to rapidly become cost-competitive with carbon-intensive technologies.

Unfortunately, this is not the approach adopted by the Bush administration in its new climate policy plan. Instead, the plan proposes support for research and development of new technologies - without increasing the price of emitting carbon - as the solution to climate change. The plan fails to mandate cuts in GHG emissions, and doesn’t even set a concrete goal for reducing future emissions. As a substitute for reducing emissions, the plan restates President Bush’s 2002 goal of cutting “emissions intensity” by 18 percent by 2012. Instead of aiming to reduce actual greenhouse gas emissions – which is what matters to earth’s atmosphere - the emissions intensity target sets a goal for the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to economic output. According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Bush’s “emissions intensity” goal actually allows for a substantial increase in net emissions. In other words, the ‘new’ plan for climate policy says that the U.S. does not have to cut back our production of the substances causing climate change. In fact, we can produce more CO2 than ever! As the United States accounts for one quarter of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, this plan significantly increases the danger of reaching Hansen’s “tipping point.”

A long-term commitment to cut emissions would send a strong signal to investors that alternative energy is worth putting money into. Failure to restrict emissions limits investment in alternative energy technologies by making them a riskier, more expensive proposition. Without the push provided by emissions restrictions, alternative energy technologies will take longer to spread through the market, slowing down progress on addressing climate change. The plan’s call for research and development of alternative energy technologies is therefore unlikely to bear fruit without employing stricter limitations on GHG emissions, especially since it only commits to a small increase (7%) in annual funding for research and development initiatives.

The plan’s avoidance of emissions restrictions contrasts sharply with what is happening in States across the country. At least 16 States have committed to reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels or below by 2020. A number have committed to drastic cuts, with California pledged to cut GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. However, without leadership at the federal level, U.S. energy and climate change policy will remain a patchwork of inconsistent state regulations, hampering its effectiveness and increasing the cost of doing business as companies struggle to operate in a sea of contradictory regulations.

The U.S. urgently needs to adopt and implement an effective climate policy, as the human, environmental, and security costs to of remaining locked into a carbon-dependent economy are becoming increasingly apparent. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina vividly demonstrated the potential catastrophic effects of climate change, as warmer oceans produce stronger, more destructive storms. In 2006, satellite images of the Arctic showed substantial decreases in the polar ice, a sure sign that Earth’s thermometer is rapidly approaching the red zone.

The negative impact of oil-dependence on national and international security is also clear. Global demand for oil is growing faster than supply, spurred by record growth in India and China. This means increased competition – and potentially conflict - between oil consuming countries, as they struggle to ensure their access to oil. At the same time, the supply of extra oil that has cushioned the global economy from oil price shocks is disappearing. This means that if a few events - such as a terrorist attack on a Saudi refinery, or several refinery shutdowns - temporarily interrupt the production and distribution of oil, the economies of oil-consuming countries will not have a cushion to fall back on. Prices would rise higher and faster than those experienced in the summer of 2006, potentially reaching $8 dollars a gallon and inflicting severe economic damage. While the U.S. has a strategic petroleum reserve to help protect it from such shocks, most other countries don’t, making competition for oil resources that much more desperate. In addition, even if the U.S. manages to moderate the price spike domestically, we could not shield ourselves from the damage resulting from a global recession.

Another way to understand why our carbon-dependent economy makes the U.S. and the world less safe is to ask where the billions of dollars spent on oil each year end up. For the most part they flow to unstable, oil-dictatorships in places like the Middle East and Sudan. There is increasing evidence that many of these dollars ultimately end up in the hands of terrorist groups. Security analysts warn that, through our purchases of foreign oil, the U.S. is funding the same terrorist groups that we are fighting.

Our dependence on fossil fuels is also a humanitarian crisis in the making, as the rising cost of oil hinders poor countries’ development and global warming starts to take its toll. The cost of oil imports to poor countries has rapidly outpaced gains achieved from debt relief. In 2005, leaders of the G8 countries agreed to write off $40 billion in debt owed by 18 of the world's poorest countries, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. However, those gains have been virtually erased as the oil bill mounts. Tanzania, for example, had to spend an additional $290 million in 2006 to purchase the same amount of oil as the preceding year. In contrast, debt cancellation is expected to free up less than half that amount - $140 million in Tanzania in 2006.

Their location, reliance on fragile ecosystems, and lack of infrastructure, also makes poor countries extremely vulnerable to the effects of global warming. The vast majority of people living in the developing world depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. As global warming alters weather patterns, monsoons will dry up, growing seasons will change, and millions will go hungry. Lack of infrastructure, also increases poor countries’ vulnerability, as poorly constructed houses are more likely to collapse in the floods and intense storms predicted as global warming continues. Poor countries’ location also counts against them, as many are island nations, or have significant areas at or near sea levels, meaning they will be among the first hit by rising sea levels. International development and aid organizations are warning that food shortages, floods and droughts caused by global warming could create millions of climate refugees. In addition to human suffering, we must keep in mind that when poor countries lose we all lose, as stalled development and massive migrations can spread conflict and political instability beyond their borders.

We need a comprehensive energy policy to combat the threats to security, environment and sustainable development posed by the world’s dependence on fossil fuels. Instead, the Bush administration’s strategic plan fails to set clear goals for a transition away from carbon-dependence, much less provide detailed policy suggestions for achieving that transition. This report represents a missed opportunity for the White House to provide leadership on a critical global challenge. With scientists projecting a narrow and rapidly-closing window of opportunity in which to reverse global warming, neither America nor the world can afford such failures.

+ READ THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN

Updated October 4, 2006