A new report from RFF points out that despite the absence of cap-and-trade legislation, the United States is on course to reach the same emissions reduction goal – 17 percent fewer emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 – that would have been mandated under the Waxman–Markey cap-and-trade proposal [H.R. 2454], if it had become law in 2010.
The report identified three factors contributing to the emissions reductions projections: Regulations under the Clean Air Act that were set to take effect without cap-and-trade legislation, particularly expected operating performance standards for new and existing stationary sources and vehicle efficiency standards; trends in fuel prices and energy efficiency; and subnational efforts, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and renewable portfolio standards in 29 states.
The model assumes that some EPA rules, such as the additional fuel economy standards proposed in 2011, would have been preempted by Waxman-Markey. That policy argument – to let the purchase of emissions credits substitute for other regulatory efforts – would have resulted in fewer emission reductions, according to RFF.
In light of this assessment should the US pursue cap-and-trade or other carbon emissions-related legislation?
Further reading:
Linking Climate Policy to Fiscal and Environmental Reform
Design and implementation of carbon cap and dividend policies
Cap and trade is deeply flawed and has consistently failed when tried. In a slumpling economy, policies that increase energy costs and undermine economic recovery will continue to be politically… Read more »
.. “has consistently failed when tried.” Hmm, I believe it’s generally considered to have worked quite well for abatement of emissions from power plants in the early days of the… Read more »
Cap and trade has in general proved to be bogus. Typically, far too many credits are distributed to the end that no one’s ox is gored (isn’t that the intent?).… Read more »
Excellent, Joel.
The report generally sounds reasonable, but your questions are still a bit tricky. “Should we still pursue cap and trade or other carbon regulation measures?’ I’d say yes, BUT ONLY… Read more »
Paul, Savory’s assertion about free-ranging cattle runs counter to what I’ve heard for years about the negative impact of cows on green house effects. Ruminants create and emit significant amount… Read more »
Hi, Joel! I think the lone paper is open access.. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-008-9157-0 Savory himself, and his colleague Heather Lovins, have also written tomes on the subject. It’s my impression that BOTH… Read more »
“A lot of the literature does seem confused by all kinds of ad hoc biases, … It would be nice to have quantitative metrics and incentives which bypass such biases… Read more »
While low cost natural gas has knocked out 20% of US coal generation falling from 50% to 40% of total national electric generation — other drivers are going to needed… Read more »
Please identify which renewable sources, especially locally based, of electricity are less expensive than the electricity that is grid based? If this is only true during peak electricity demand? Please… Read more »
The RFF analysis of the Waxman/Markey bill (H.R. 2454) might reach some very different conclusions if it went out to year 2050. This dormant HR bill, based on climate change… Read more »