White House chart on proposed emissions.
When the deadline was reached Tuesday, just six governments
had submitted plans for reducing their climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions: the European Union, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Switzerland and the
United States. Given that these plans—in the jargon called “intended nationally designated contributions”—are meant to provide the basis for an international climate agreement to be signed in Paris just eight months from now, that's not very encouraging.
As environmental reporter Tim McConnell noted at Mother Jones, there were no surprises in the U.S. submission. The INDC the Obama administration has proposed reiterates the deal it made with Beijing five months ago to reduce the U.S. contribution of greenhouse gases 26 to 28 per cent over the 2005 levels by 2025. A key element of this reduction comes from the Clean Power Plan. It mandates reducing GHG emissions from the electricity sector 30 percent by 2030. That means big changes for coal. And that means a commitment to a big expansion of renewable sources of energy.
I'll get to some of the INDC's details in a moment. But first a few words from the Republicans in the form of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's suggestion to the rest of the world that it should not count on the United States to cut its emissions. The crux of this saboteur's remarks:
"Considering that two-thirds of the U.S. federal government hasn't even signed off on the Clean Power Plan and 13 states have already pledged to fight it, our international partners should proceed with caution before entering into a binding, unattainable deal."
Or said another way:
You cannot be sure that Obama's global warming proposal won't be reversed when we Republicans get hold of it. Because, snowballs.
Next up presumably, Tom Cotton-style, will be a letter on Senate stationery to Mother Earth explaining the benefits she receives from human extraction and burning of fossil fuels and warning her not to get her hopes up that the denier caucus of America's top legislature is going to shake off its ignorance and greed and start dealing with reality.
Head below the orange-stained CO2 emissions to read more about Obama's proposal.
While McConnell and Sens. Jim Inhofe and Ted Cruz and a whole bunch of other leaders who think that ignoring climate change will make it go away continue down that dead-end path, the Obama administration is determined to do those things it can executively, without depending on a congress majority equally hostile to Obama and science. Those things include regulations the right wing is trying to squash.
John H. Cushman Jr. at InsideClimate News writes:
"Undoing the kind of regulation that we are putting in place is something that is very tough to do," said Todd Stern, the administration's top climate negotiator.
Among those regulations are:
• Efficiency standards for household appliances, industrial equipment, and buildings;
• Proposed new regulations on power plants that burn fossil fuels;
• Executive orders cutting energy use in federal buildings;
• Rules already in place or expected soon to increase the fuel efficiency, and hence cut emissions, of automobiles and trucks;
• A wide variety of initiatives in the administration's Climate Action Plan that would encourage the use of renewable fuels, including solar and wind power.
Cap and trade, which foundered in 2010, isn't part of the U.S. INDC proposal. Unfortunately, neither is a move to stop leasing coal and oil on public land, on or off-shore. Indeed, the administration has just given Shell Oil the go-ahead to drill in Arctic waters this year. That, of course, means there's a chance of a spill or blow-out that will present far greater remediation difficulties than the disastrous BP spill in the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Just one of the many problems associated with the administration's all-of-the-above energy policy.
But while the administration's climate and energy policies have their flaws, they also provide the means for making considerable progress. Four examples as pointed outby Eric Roston:
Power Plants : In July the administration plans to finalize rules limiting the level of carbon dioxide emissions permitted from existing and new power plants. If the rules survive the deniers' objections and lawsuits, many U.S. coal plants are going to be shuttered and likely no new ones built.
Fuel-Efficiency Standards: The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation have finalized auto and light-truck fuel-efficiency standards. By 2025, that means these vehicles must average 54.5 miles per gallon. After the 2018 model year, rules governing efficiency of trucks and heavy-duty trucks are expected.
Methane: Although it lasts a much shorter time in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, methane is many times more effective as a greenhouse gas. The administration is expected to impose rules this summer to cut methane emissions from industrial sources.
Refrigeration Gases: Although carbon dioxide and methane make up more greenhouse gas emissions by volume, hydrofluorocarbons are much more potent. The EPA has approved alternatives and the administration hopes reduce their use through international partnerships.
Much more is needed, of course. And much faster. One key element is green infrastructure. While the administration has made some progress in this arena, getting better policies and, most important of all, a big federal budget for such infrastructure, can't be done by executive action alone. That's going to require a Congress where members who deny that human-caused climate change is underway are laughed right off the floor every time they open their mouths. And that, obviously, will require getting them laughed at and rejected on their home turf.