A little over one month ago, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) received national pledges from 55 countries, to cut and limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Included in the pledges was a commitment from the U.S. to reduce its GHG emissions in the range of 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. The non-binding target came with a disclaimer, however, that hinges on an uncertainty for the world’s largest emitter among developed nations: the enactment of U.S. climate legislation.
Several months ago, the prospect for U.S. climate legislation in the near term seemed much more likely than it does at CE press time. But that could change, given the mood swings that seem to have taken this issue hostage. Last month, for instance, researchers at Yale and George Mason universities released the results of a national survey in which 62% of respondents said that the U.S. should make a medium- to large-scale effort to reduce global warming, even if doing so has moderate or large economic costs. Despite a 12-point drop in that measure since the fall of 2008, most respondents — regardless of political affiliation — indicated that they support the passage of federal climate and energy policies, the survey says.
When it comes to climate change, I consider myself to be a pragmatist. I certainly don’t have any black-and-white evidence that proves exactly how today’s GHG concentrations or proposed legislation would play out. But here are four points that I think are often either overlooked or misunderstood:
1. Climate change and global warming are two related, but not identical terms. Climate change refers to major changes in temperature, rainfall, snow or wind patterns lasting for decades or longer. Although there are many natural sources of climate change, it is the influence of human activities on climate change that is currently under scrutiny. Meanwhile, global warming refers to an average increase in surface temperatures over time and can be considered part of climate change along with changes in precipitation, sea level and so on. The point here is that recent snow storms in Texas and Virginia do not disprove global warming. If anything, they are a nod to more extreme-weather patterns indicative of climate change.
2. The idea that CO2 can’t be considered a pollutant, simply because humans exhale it or plants consume it, takes oversimplification to an extreme. Climate change predictions aside, increasing CO2 concentrations can — and are — contributing to increased acidity of the oceans.
3. Cap-and-trade legislation has already been proven successful in the Acid Rain program, brought to pass by the first Bush Administration in the 1990s. Crafted by an unlikely marriage of free-market conservatives and environmentalists, the program was completely successful in terms of SO2 emissions compliance, despite some critics’ concerns that it would be a way for industry to buy its way out of fixing the problem. Meanwhile, other critics claimed that the limits on pollution would cause electricity bills to rise, but electricity rates are lower now (in constant dollars) than they were in 1990.
4. Natural gas, while cleaner burning and less carbon intensive than coal, is a key chemical feedstock. Further shifts toward natural gas as an energy source would have economic impacts for industry and consumers alike.
While these and other nuances are hammered out in the U.S. regulatory system, the combination of mandatory GHG reporting and increasing scrutiny in the financial sector could have its own influence (more here). In the meantime, we want to hear your opinions on GHG regulation, climate change and everything in between. Please click here to take a brief online survey that will be open until April 10.
Rebekkah Marshall [email protected]