Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
4/17/2015
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions domestically will not only have a negligible effect on global climate change but will also put the United States at an economic disadvantage, lawmakers said during a House Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearing this week. The purpose of the hearing was to examine the potential effects of the recently announced U.S. Intended Nationally Determined Contribution to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States has committed to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, which, according to the Obama Administration, would put the United States on a trajectory to reach 80 percent emissions reductions by 2050. “The president’s pledge to the U.N. hinges on a questionable and unclear plan. The [commitment] submitted two weeks ago lacks details about how we will achieve such goals without burdening our economy, and it fails to quantify the specific climate benefits tied to the promise,” Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said during the hearing.
The INDCs are public commitments made by countries stating what they intend to do to combat the global issue of climate change. The UNFCCC had asked countries to submit these plans by the end of March, well ahead of the 21st Conference of the Parties to be held in Paris in December, at which time a new international climate agreement is hoped to the struck. Implementing the programs needed to meet the goals laid out in the U.S. INDC would require shifting the nation’s energy production away from inexpensive fossil fuels to more costly renewable generation which in turn would cause energy prices to rise, pushing manufacturing oversees to countries where such measures have not been taken, Rep. John Moolenaar, (R-Mich.) said during the hearing. “Aren’t we paying a huge competitive price for a kind of political statement that says we’re doing something at the same time when others may not be equally committed to that?” Moolenaar said.
Much of the reductions called for in the pledge will likely come from the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon emissions standards for coal-fired power plants, which would require states to develop actions plans to meet EPA-set emissions reduction goals. The proposed rule is the target of several legal challenges and has been decried as a major threat to the economy by its opponents. These claims are not uncommon but historically have not panned out, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said during the hearing. “Critics of the EPA rule have a sky is falling attitude towards actions that would protect the health of Americans, and do something about emissions which I think kind of ignores the fact that the U.S. economy has tripled in size since the adoption of the Clean Air Act in 1970,” she said.
U.S. Pledge More Stringent Than Others
Several witnesses at the hearing echoed Moolenaar’s concern, noting that China will likely continue to build coal-fired power plants while doing so in the United States will become more difficult. Further, witnesses suggested, the commitments being made are not at nearly the same level of stringency for all countries with some doing little beyond business as usual. “If the world is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then developing countries will have to take on huge commitments. However, indications are that that’s not happening,” said Karen Harbert, President and CEO of the Institute for 21st Century Energy and former Assistant Energy Secretary for Policy and International Affairs during the Bush administration. “China provides a very useful example. Its pledge to peak its carbon emissions around 2030, and to increase its share of non-fossil fuel consumption to around 20 percent, is business as usual.”
Jake Schmidt, Director of the International Program at the Natural Resources Defense Counci, said, though, that making a less stringent pledge could weaken the United States’ international leadership position in the fight against climate change. “As you know, U.S. action at home also helps to spur global action. For almost two decades, inaction on climate change in the U.S. has been a major stumbling block to securing strong international action on climate change. When the U.S. is willing to step forward domestically, it can have a catalyzing impact in other countries,” Schmidt said. “When the world’s largest economy acts, it sends a powerful signal to other governments that they also can and must act aggressively on this great challenge of climate change.”
