10 Dec 2012: Analysis

Without Congress, There’s Still a
Path to U.S. Progress on Climate

Don’t expect the U.S. Congress to take any action on climate change in the next four years. But by continuing to use its regulatory authority and working with the states, the Obama administration can make significant progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

by john carey

When Barack Obama won his first term as president in 2008, expectations were high that the United States would finally tackle the threat of climate change. In fact, the administration quickly raised fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, and the House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill that would have imposed economy-wide caps on greenhouse emissions and set targets for future reductions.

But the legislation died. And Obama’s brave talk of slowing the rise of the seas and healing the planet vanished from the political discussion after climate change-denying Republicans seized control of the House in 2010. All that remained were some states moving ahead with their own emissions reductions policies, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cautiously proposing to limit the amount of carbon dioxide from new power plants.

So what can we expect in the second term? In some ways, more of the same. No action in Congress, so no cap-and-trade program or carbon tax. State action and EPA regulation will continue to be the only major climate games in town. “Most likely we will blunder along as we are doing now, achieving some genuine progress through regulatory solutions, but grossly underfunding technological change and not having a price on carbon,” predicts Mark Muro, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Yet such a path could prove to be surprisingly productive. “There is an assumption that working with the tools of the existing law is just fiddling around the edges,” says David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resource Defense Council’s climate and clean air program. Not so, he says: “We can do something big.”

Indeed, thanks to the auto standards, the sluggish economy, and the dash to use more of newly abundant natural gas to generate electricity, the U. S. is on track for substantial emissions cuts by 2020, according to a recent
Climate change has leapt back into the larger policy discussion in Washington.
analysis by Resources for the Future economist Dallas Burtraw. “A 10 percent or more reduction is already baked in,” says Burtraw. If the Administration takes the contentious step of putting curbs on existing power plants, the country could come very close to meeting the commitment Obama made in Copenhagen in 2009 of slashing emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. It might even cut emissions more than the failed House climate bill would have done — although progress beyond 2020 would require far stronger measures.

“When you start adding the pieces up, the surprise is that there is more going on than people thought,” says Burtraw.

Moreover, there are two crucial differences between the start of Obama’s second term and the last couple of years. The first is that President Obama has put climate change back on the table. In his first post-election news conference on November 14, Obama said: “If... we can shape an agenda that says we can create jobs, advance growth and make a serious dent in climate change... I think that's something that the American people would support.” As Nat Keohane, who did a 20-month stint as special assistant to the president on energy and environmental issues before returning to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in September, argues, “The president really cares about his legacy on this issue.”

The second is that climate change has suddenly leapt back into the larger policy discussion. The devastating human and economic toll of Hurricane Sandy has brought an explosion of new interest in making cities and communities more resilient to extreme weather. In addition, the combination of Sandy and the search for the revenue needed to shrink the national debt and avoid the fiscal cliff has revived ideas that once seemed close to dead, most notably — in the long term — carbon taxes.

Just one week after the election, the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute held a standing-room-only, all-day carbon tax conference, and conservative groups like the Energy & Enterprise Initiative at George Mason University are pushing the idea as a winning strategy for Republicans.

“Conservatives don’t have to be in science denial anymore. We can engage in the debate because we have the answer to climate change,” says initiative
The work being done now could lay the groundwork for a price on carbon in the U.S. in the future.
head, former Congressman Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), who supports a carbon tax. The blogosphere is humming with carbon tax punditry, and even Grover Norquist initially acknowledged that such a levy, if it returned the proceeds to the American people, would not violate his famous “never raise taxes” pledge. “It’s welcome to be having a serious policy discussion on an issue that seemed pretty moribund six months ago,” says the Brookings’ Muro.

Just don’t expect the discussion to result in legislation anytime soon. Passing a carbon tax in the next four years is politically impossible, most policy experts believe. Even if Republicans signed on, they would demand preemption of EPA regulation, which Democrats and environmentalists would never accept. But the work being done now could help lay the groundwork for a price on carbon in future years, especially because it’s clear that regulation gets us only part way to the sweeping economic transition needed to successfully fight global warming.

“Reducing our greenhouse gas footprint while increasing standards of living will require deploying a huge range of clean energy technologies,” explains Manik Roy, vice president for strategic research at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). “We can’t do that through command and control regulation.”

In the meantime, though, regulation can make effective progress at the narrower task of cutting pollution and carbon emissions. That’s why “the most important thing the president can do on climate change on the domestic front is EPA regulations under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act,” says EDF’s Keohane. Using the Clean Air Act authority (affirmed by the landmark 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that CO2 is a pollutant under the act), the EPA proposed last April that new power plants could emit no more than 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (lbs/MWh) of electricity produced. That’s about the amount that now comes from a clean natural gas power plant. The agency is expected to finalize those rules by the statutory one-year deadline in April 2013. Then it’s expected to begin seriously thinking about the nation’s single largest source of CO2 — existing power plants. Those plants emit about 2.5 billion tons a year, 40 percent of the U.S. total.

The challenge is that it’s difficult to substantially cut emissions from individual existing plants, at least until technologies like carbon capture and storage have been fully developed. As a result, “the question for industry and environmental groups is what interests do they have in
California’s nascent cap-and-trade program could spur federal regulatory efforts.
promoting more flexible policies,” says Kyle Danish, climate and clean air law expert at the Washington, D.C.- and Seattle-based law firm Van Ness Feldman.

Many companies are willing. “We don’t want to stop regulation — we want it cheaper and better,” says Peter Molinaro, vice president of federal and state government affairs for Dow Chemical.

Environmentalists may also embrace innovative approaches. In fact, last week the NRDC formally unveiled a detailed 90-page plan that would give utilities and states enormous flexibility. Instead of putting curbs on individual plants, the proposal would set average statewide emissions limits aimed at achieving a national average of about 1,500 lbs/MWh by 2020. Individual plants could be retrofitted with more efficient boilers or CO2 capture systems, or switched to cleaner fuels. Or utilities with a fleet of plants could run their coal plants less often, and ramp up generation from natural gas plants or renewable sources. Or they could retire coal plants and build new natural gas and renewable capacity. Emissions reductions accomplished through energy efficiency improvements would also count. And states would have the freedom to adopt different approaches, such as California’s new cap-and-trade program, or the Northeast states’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

NRDC says the plan would cut emissions by 26 percent by 2020, lower electricity bills, and bring billions of dollars in benefits from lives saved, illnesses prevented, and devastation from climate change avoided. “This is big, but not expensive,” says Doniger.

But it could be too much too soon, given the intense opposition and potential legal challenges. “A better strategy may be to go slower, with less ambitious reductions,” advises Robert Brenner, former director of the Office of Policy Analysis and Review in EPA’s air and radiation office and now
The U.S. has a good shot at staying on track for substantial progress on climate.
senior fellow at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.

Indeed, the Obama Administration is moving cautiously, saying that curbs on existing power plants are at least several years away. That stance is frustrating climate policy advocates, who point out that, in international climate talks, the administration is already touting the reductions those curbs would accomplish. “They are taking credit for something they haven’t committed to yet,” complains C2ES’s Roy.

But the NRDC proposal clearly charts a likely legal and regulatory path for EPA emissions curbs, first on existing power plants and then on other high-emitting sectors like refineries and cement plants. “I think that in four years there will be regulations in place for many of the key sectors,” Brenner predicts.

Climate policy advocates also expect that California’s nascent cap-and-trade program, which requires emitters to buy permits for carbon pollution and thus puts a price on carbon, will complement and spur federal regulatory efforts, especially if it brings hoped-for economic benefits and clean-energy innovations. “California can be the model for the nation, showing that we can indeed limit carbon emissions in a growing economy,” says Keohane.


Will President Obama Seize
Moment on Climate Change?

Will President Obama Seize Moment on Climate Change?
Climate change received scant attention in the election campaign. But with public concern about global warming growing in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, President Obama has an unprecedented opportunity to take bold action on climate and clean energy.
The bottom line: The U.S. still has a good shot of staying on track for substantial progress in the fight against climate change over the next decade — if the Obama Administration gets behind regulation of existing power plants. Beyond 2020, though, going farther will require putting a steep price on carbon. That’s the only way to provide incentives for cutting emissions throughout the entire economy, doing everything from changing people’s behavior to spurring new, cleaner technologies.

A carbon tax also can generate big bucks: A modest $15 per ton of carbon dioxide fee (equivalent to about 15 cents on a gallon of gas) that rises 4 percent above inflation each year would immediately bring in $80 billion per year and $170 billion per year by 2030. The money from taxing something bad — carbon pollution — then could be used for something good, such as reducing payroll taxes or the deficit.

So the hope is that by 2020, successful federal regulations and state efforts will have quieted the opposition to emissions limits, more Americans will be connecting the dots between extreme weather catastrophes like Superstorm Sandy and getting serious about climate change, and the current groundwork on carbon taxes and other carbon pricing policies will finally bear fruit.

POSTED ON 10 Dec 2012 IN Climate Climate Energy Policy & Politics Pollution & Health Science & Technology Central & South America Europe North America 


As Bill Clinton would say, do the arithmetic. The lifetime of carbon dioxide in the environment is 3,000 years. Moreover, a majority of today's global warming is caused by warmers with very short lifetimes of a few minutes to a few years: carbon monoxide, methane, ozone, black carbon, F-gases, etc. Industry and its defenders always argue that doing nothing will solve the problem. Perhaps Dallas Burtraw and his ilk are correct, but business as usual didn't clean America's air and water--that took federal legislation. This will too, so stop trying to kid--and kill--us.

Posted by Curtis Moore on 15 Dec 2012

Hoping that the EPA will clean up power plants? Lisa Jackson, forever beleaguered in the EPA, is resigning. Whose holding her breath that her replacement will be as good? Here in NM, the governor and the utility company are dead set against complying with the EPA mandate to clean up the San Juan power plant.

The utility wants to keep the plant as is for five years, then switch to fracking for natural gas. Unlike the author, I think it's better to clean up the coal plant by 80 percent as mandated by EPA instead of fracking for natural gas in the near future. But without Lisa Jackson, I have misgivings about this particular outcome. And I can imagine similar dangers exist throughout the land.

Posted by TRB on 31 Dec 2012

I will start by saying that we, here in Canada, have a prime minister that many Canadians abhor. When we do the math, we discover that only about 23 percent of eligible voters actually chose his Tar Sands, er, Conservative party line. Furthermore, it's only the voters in his riding who actually voted him into office.

But can Americans understand that the rest of us are starting to hate you? How can the whole U.S. Congress turn its back on the climate change emergency? It makes a mockery of your democracy -- and creates such a sense of desperation for the rest of us. How I long for the world that might have been if you hadn't allowed Bush to steal the 2000 election.

The Burning Age is over, folks. The era of fuel burning has to end ... when will fossil fuel corporations get that through their thick skulls and start becoming part of the rapid transition to a zero-carbon perpetual energy economy? ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS has to be our one united goal. Everything else, including the slate of strategies described above, has to get us to zero yesterday -- or we'll be (as the Director of the IMF said in Davos) "roasted, toasted, fried and grilled."

Posted by GreenHearted on 12 Feb 2013


Comments are moderated and will be reviewed before they are posted to ensure they are on topic, relevant, and not abusive. They may be edited for length and clarity. By filling out this form, you give Yale Environment 360 permission to publish this comment.

Email address 
Please type the text shown in the graphic.

John Carey is a freelance writer covering the environment, energy, science, technology and medicine. Until 2010, he was senior correspondent at BusinessWeek, where during 21 years he wrote about a range of issues, from sequencing the human genome and global warming to tobacco regulation, election technology, cholesterol-lowering drugs and renewable energy. He is a former editor of The Scientist, and spent six years at Newsweek, where he covered science, technology, and health.



Why Supreme Court’s Action
Creates Opportunity on Climate

The U.S. Supreme Court order blocking the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan may have a silver lining: It provides an opportunity for the U.S. to show other nations it has a flexible, multi-faceted approach to cutting emissions.

With Court Action, Obama’s
Climate Policies in Jeopardy

The U.S. Supreme Court order blocking President Obama’s plan to cut emissions from coal-burning power plants is an unprecedented step and one of the most environmentally harmful decisions ever made by the nation’s highest court.

Forum: How Daring is
Obama's New Climate Plan?

President Obama has unveiled a proposal to combat global warming that would, for the first time, regulate carbon dioxide emissions from all U.S. coal-fired power plants. Yale Environment 360 asked a group of experts to assess the president’s climate strategy.

An Advocate in Pursuit of
Environmental Justice at EPA

Matthew Tejada is taking over the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice after helping low-income communities in Houston fight air pollution in their neighborhoods. He talks to Yale Environment 360 about how his work in Texas prepared him for the challenges of his new post.

A Conservative Who Believes
That Climate Change Is Real

Republican Bob Inglis’ statement that he believed in human-caused climate change helped cost him his seat in Congress. In a Yale Environment 360 interview, Inglis explains why he is now trying to persuade his fellow conservatives that their principles can help save the planet.


MORE IN Analysis

How Far Can Technology Go
To Stave Off Climate Change?

by david biello
With carbon dioxide emissions continuing to rise, an increasing number of experts believe major technological breakthroughs —such as CO2 air capture — will be necessary to slow global warming. But without the societal will to decarbonize, even the best technologies won’t be enough.

With Trump, China Emerges
As Global Leader on Climate

by isabel hilton
With Donald Trump threatening to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, China is ready to assume leadership of the world’s climate efforts. For China, it is a matter of self-interest – reducing the choking pollution in its cities and seizing the economic opportunities of a low-carbon future.

What a Trump Win Means
For the Global Climate Fight

by david victor
Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency signals an end to American leadership on international climate policy. With the withdrawal of U.S. support, efforts to implement the Paris agreement and avoid the most devastating consequences of global warming have suffered a huge blow.

The Methane Riddle: What Is
Causing the Rise in Emissions?

by fred pearce
The cause of the rapid increase in methane emissions since 2007 has puzzled scientists. But new research finds some surprising culprits in the methane surge and shows that fossil-fuel sources have played a much larger role over time than previously estimated.

As Arctic Ocean Ice Disappears,
Global Climate Impacts Intensify

by peter wadhams
The top of the world is turning from white to blue in summer as the ice that has long covered the north polar seas melts away. This monumental change is triggering a cascade of effects that will amplify global warming and could destabilize the global climate system.

How Climate Change Could Jam
The World's Ocean Circulation

by nicola jones
Scientists are closely monitoring a key current in the North Atlantic to see if rising sea temperatures and increased freshwater from melting ice are altering the “ocean conveyor belt” — a vast oceanic stream that plays a major role in the global climate system.

Wildlife Farming: Does It Help
Or Hurt Threatened Species?

by richard conniff
Wildlife farming is being touted as a way to protect endangered species while providing food and boosting incomes in rural areas. But some conservation scientists argue that such practices fail to benefit beleaguered wildlife.

What Would a Global Warming
Increase of 1.5 Degrees Be Like?

by fred pearce
The Paris climate conference set the ambitious goal of finding ways to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, rather than the previous threshold of 2 degrees. But what would be the difference between a 1.5 and 2 degree world? And how realistic is such a target?

After Paris, A Move to Rein In
Emissions by Ships and Planes

by fred pearce
As the world moves to slash CO2 emissions, the shipping and aviation sectors have managed to remain on the sidelines. But the pressure is now on these two major polluting industries to start controlling their emissions at last.

Abrupt Sea Level Rise Looms
As Increasingly Realistic Threat

by nicola jones
Ninety-nine percent of the planet's freshwater ice is locked up in the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps. Now, a growing number of studies are raising the possibility that as those ice sheets melt, sea levels could rise by six feet this century, and far higher in the next, flooding many of the world's populated coastal areas.

e360 digest
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies


Donate to Yale Environment 360
Yale Environment 360 Newsletter



About e360
Submission Guidelines

E360 en Español

Universia partnership
Yale Environment 360 articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on Universia, the online educational network.
Visit the site.


e360 Digest
Video Reports


Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology


Antarctica and the Arctic
Central & South America
Middle East
North America

e360 VIDEO

A look at how acidifying oceans could threaten the Dungeness crab, one of the most valuable fisheries on the U.S. West Coast.
Watch the video.


The latest
from Yale
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at e360.yale.edu/mobile.


An aerial view of why Europe’s per capita carbon emissions are less than 50 percent of those in the U.S.
View the photos.

e360 VIDEO

An indigenous tribe’s deadly fight to save its ancestral land in the Amazon rainforest from logging.
Learn more.

e360 VIDEO

Food waste
An e360 video series looks at the staggering amount of food wasted in the U.S. – a problem with major human and environmental costs.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Choco rainforest Cacao
Residents of the Chocó Rainforest in Ecuador are choosing to plant cacao over logging in an effort to slow deforestation.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Tribal people and ranchers join together to stop a project that would haul coal across their Montana land.
Watch the video.