EPA recently released its analysis* of the atmospheric global warming emission concentrations under three proposed federal cap and trade bills. This analysis makes a key point: the U.S., acting alone, is not likely to be able to solve the global climate change problem. However, the results as presented obscure what is equally important: there remains a significant difference in the emissions reductions demanded by each bill. The emissions reductions target set by the U.S. will almost certainly have major implications for the global effort to solve the global climate problem.
WRI's bill analysis remains an accurate portrayal of the differences in the U.S. emissions levels under each bill. Although the U.S. is responsible for only 20% of global emissions, it is clear that as the world's largest emitter, choosing a weak target will have environmental and diplomatic implications. Almost all analysts believe U.S. leadership in setting aggressive greenhouse gas (GHG) caps will be necessary to spur needed international action on climate change, and that developing countries will be more likely to take positive action if the U.S. takes on aggressive targets in line with its industrial peers rather than only adopting weak efforts.
A number of critical assumptions underlie any bill analysis. EPA uses some assumptions that appear to differ from the text of the bills themselves. For example:
See full Press Release.
Posts
