Post by John Lanchbery, Principal Climate Change Adviser
Yesterday, President Obama launched his climate action plan, which he said was both a moral and an economic imperative, needed to protect future generations – describing the plan as ‘taking action for our kids’. We’ve been waiting for action on the climate for the US for a long time, and the clear line in the sand Obama has drawn this week that firmly associates him with serious climate action gives us hope.
The content of the plan is of course far from perfect - he is hamstrung by two major difficulties: the refusal of the Congress to pass any new legislation on climate change and the fact that previous Presidents took no action. He must try to make up for two decades of climate inaction by the USA whilst at the same time being limited in his scope for new policies.
Most worringly, the US is sticking to its previous emission reduction target “in the range of” 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels. This translates as a goal of only a 3 or 4% reduction from 1990 levels, which is pitifully small compared with the targets of most other developed countries that have much larger, but still inadequate, targets. To stay below the internationally agreed goal of 2oC, countries like the USA, UK, Germany and Japan should be cutting 2020 emissions by 40% from 1990 levels.
Yet there are some serious measures in the plan. Obama has already set tough (in American eyes) fuel economy standards for road vehicles, such as an average of 54.5 mpg for cars by 2025. He now plans to do the same for power plant, via the Environmental Protection Agency. He also plans to double renewable energy generation by 2020 and double energy efficiency by 2030 from 2010 levels. There are schemes to cut HFCs and methane, and to promote forest conservation – US forests remove about 12% of all US emissions.
Sitting uncomfortably with the talk of emission reductions is the proud claim that “we have become the world’s leading producer of natural gas – the cleanest-burning fossil fuel”. This may be true and switching from coal to shale gas for electricity generation may cut emissions in the short term but it will not help much in cutting emissions to nearly zero by the middle of the century. In fact, it may delay decarbonisation if shale gas is as abundant and cheap as is claimed.
The abiding feeling is the USA is trying to do a lot but that the constraints on the President are stifling much of what he would like to do. Whilst understanding why the US 2020 target is as it is, it remains woefully short of what is needed. Perhaps the rest of the World will have to save itself with encouragement, but not much practical support, from the USA.