There are many reasons to be concerned about climate change, and it is easy to become overwhelmed by the negatives, so I will spend little time on them. Rather, this post will examine policy solutions for mitigating climate change to offer a glimpse of hope in a changing world.
For those not familiar with the issue, greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide have caused a shift in Earth’s climate, increasing the incidence and magnitude of natural disasters, biodiversity loss, drought, sea level rise, and loss of sea ice.[1] Average temperatures are expected to increase 9°F by 2100, approximately the same temperature difference between now and the last global ice age.[1] In agriculture, yields of staple crops such as wheat and corn are expected to drop 5-15% for each additional degree of warming.[1] In addition, by 2100 there are expected to be 2,000 deaths annually from extreme temperatures.[2]
Now, for that promised glimpse of hope. Mitigating climate change is possible. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), doing so will require achieving a 45% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 and zero-net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.[15] In 2050 remaining emissions will need to be offset by trees, which absorb carbon dioxide and replace it with oxygen.[15]
Policy must be implemented to mitigate climate change. As much as I support using a reusable bag at the grocery store and turning off the lights when not in use (please continue to do these things), these individual actions will not be enough to achieve zero emissions by 2050. Comprehensive policy must be created to target and eliminate carbon dioxide emissions.
Of the 6,870 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted in the United States in 2014, 31% was from electricity and 26% from transportation.[4] Other sources of carbon dioxide include agriculture and waste. Energy sources responsible for the highest percent of carbon dioxide emissions are fossil fuels such as coal (65%), natural gas (33%), and petroleum (1%).[5] To achieve the IPCC’s 45% reduction goal, 3,092 million metric tons of carbon dioxide would need to be eliminated by 2030.
Many policy options have been discussed in the literature to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. One common method mentioned above is carbon offsetting – planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and replace it with oxygen. In 2011, U.S. forests naturally removed 893.1 million tons of carbon dioxide.[6] Carbon offsetting is highly popular and has been implemented worldwide. China offset 21% of its fossil fuel emissions in 2000 by creating forest plantations and actor Leonardo DiCaprio’s foundation is working to plant 5,000 acres of forest in the Mississippi River Basin.[7,8]
It is tempting to plant thousands of acres of forest and continue with business as usual. However, using forestation as a stand-alone carbon mitigation technique is not without flaws. Disturbances such as forest fires and insect outbreaks cause carbon stores in forests to enter the atmosphere.[7] As fires are part of the natural forest cycle, planting trees to offset carbon dioxide emissions merely prolongs carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, rather than eliminating it (sorry Leo).
Still, ending deforestation is essential to slow the rate of climate change and achieve zero-net carbon dioxide emissions in 2050. Existing forests should be protected by expanding the number and size of national and state parks. This policy is expected to have high administrative and political feasibility, as the national parks system already exists to ensure the protection of forests. However, it is best implemented in conjunction with policies to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced.
A market-based mechanism of reducing carbon dioxide is cap-and-trade, which puts a cap on emissions and allows entities to buy and sell allowances to emit through government auctions.[9] Emitters who achieve a reduction and have a surplus of allowances available to them would have the option to sell those allowances for a profit.
An existing cap-and-trade program is the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a joint policy between California and Québec with the goal of reducing emissions by 15% over seven years, or 2.14% each year.[10] The United States could create its own cap-and-trade program modeled after the WCI, but the cap could be increased to 4.5% annually for a 45% reduction by 2030. Based on the 6,870 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted in 2014, a 45% reduction will amount to 3,092 million tons reduced, meeting the IPCC’s goal for 2030.[4]
One potential problem with cap-and-trade is that it increases energy costs, which disproportionately affects low-income consumers. If a cap-and-trade program is implemented, increased energy costs to low-income households must be mitigated, such as through a rebate. The WCI generated $5.7 billion in revenue in 2018, and it is expected that a U.S. program would make much more.[10] Revenues that are not spent on program administration should certainly be extended to low-income consumers, who pay the highest percentage of their income on energy and are expected to be the most negatively impacted by climate change.
Another problem with cap-and-trade is that it has low administrative feasibility. A permit trading system would need to be created and overseen by bureaucracies, who would approve registration requests, oversee the distribution of allowances, and manage auction results.[11] However, the program is expected to have moderate political feasibility as cap-and-trade programs are opposed by fossil fuel interest groups but are generally more popular than a tax.
Another market-based mechanism of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a carbon tax, which puts a fee on carbon dioxide emissions and the inputs that create them (coal, oil, natural gas).[9] Carbon taxes have the potential to achieve a high emissions reduction. A carbon tax set at $25 per ton was estimated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25 percent.[3] Based on this finding, a carbon tax set at $45 per ton may be needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 45%. This estimate is consistent with the literature. The EPA estimated the social cost of emissions and most optimal tax rate to be $42 per metric ton.[12] A carbon tax in the U.S. could start at $25 per ton and increase by $2 each year plus inflation until reaching $45 in 2030. Based on the 2014 total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of 6,870 million metric tons, a $25 per ton tax would reduce 1,717.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, and a $45 per ton tax in 2030 would meet the IPCC’s goal, reducing emissions by 3,092 million tons.[4]
Similar to cap-and-trade, carbon taxes are expected to increase energy costs, a problem that disproportionally affects low-income households. A carbon tax set at $25 per ton is expected to raise $102 billion in annual revenue.[3] The bulk of this revenue should be spent on benefits to low-income households such as a rebate.
A benefit of carbon taxes is that they have high administrative feasibility, as taxes are common and straightforward to implement. However, political feasibility is low because new taxes are highly unpopular in the United States.[9] In addition, there is concern that the program could easily be weakened by fossil fuel subsidies.[9]
A carbon mitigation program targeting transportation is Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards, implemented in 2011 under the Obama Administration to increase the average fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles in the United States. Average vehicle miles per gallon (MPG) was calculated based on a manufacturer’s annual vehicle fleet. The program’s goal was to reach 54.5 average MPG by 2025, double the 2012 average.[13] The standards were expected to reduce emissions by 6 billion metric tons by 2025, or 461.5 million tons per year.[13] The program was estimated to save consumers $8,000 over the lifetime of their vehicle.[13] However, there is concern that it could increase the price of new vehicles as manufacturers implement new gas saving technology.
The program is expected to have high political feasibility, as it will save consumers money in the long-term and had support from 13 major automakers, who together account for more than 90 percent of all vehicles sold in the United States.[13] In addition, the law has been implemented before, although it was dismantled by the Trump administration. The program is also expected to have high administrative feasibility, as it only requires taking the average MPG of a manufacturer’s fleet and ensuring that the average is at or below the required standard.
After analyzing several policy options for mitigating climate change, I recommend that the United States implement a Climate Action Plan that includes cap-and-trade, CAFE standards, and an expansion of national parks. The most effective policy at reducing carbon dioxide emissions associated with energy is a combination of policies because carbon dioxide emissions are produced heavily from both electricity and transportation sectors. Cap-and-trade is preferred over a tax because it has greater political feasibility, a cap on emissions that makes the reduction certain, and it is not subject to being weakened by a fossil fuel subsidy. CAFE standards address carbon dioxide emissions from transportation, and expanding national parks ensures that any remaining carbon dioxide emissions can be offset in 2050 to achieve the IPCC’s zero-net carbon dioxide goal.
Now to address the elephant in the room: how can we pass a Climate Action Plan worthy of tackling such an encompassing issue with leaders who refuse to act, many of whom deny that anthropogenic climate change exists? I won’t pretend to have a perfect answer to this question, but I can provide some potential avenues for action.
First, the views of office holders do not align with those of their constituents. There is actually high public support for mitigating climate change. A 2016 Yale survey found that 74 percent of Americans believe carbon dioxide should be regulated as a pollutant.[14] This public support must be mobilized through grassroots organization, so that members of congress are made aware that the issue is important to their constituents.
Second, climate change must be framed as a social and economic issue in addition to environmental. There is a tendency for climate change to be pushed to the back burner because other very important collective-action issues take the forefront, such as health care, and recently, coronavirus. While addressing these issues is incredibly important, (I do not want to understate that) climate change has not had the same sense of urgency, perhaps because it is often framed purely as an environmental issue. However, as mentioned above, climate change has many future economic and social costs. Climate change should be reframed to focus on the cost to humans in addition to the environment so that the issue becomes more salient.
Third, climate change must find its policy window. Events often create the perfect opportunity to bring an issue to the forefront of the national policy discussion. For example, the great recession and Obama’s presidential nomination in 2008 opened a policy window for health care reform. Events such as the wildfire in the Amazon rainforest or the 2020 presidential election must be used as opportunities to bring climate change to the forefront of the national policy discussion.
Solving climate change is possible. It requires comprehensive policy focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It requires bold action and leadership – qualities that admittedly appear to be lacking. Although there is no easy answer, we have a set of policy options waiting to be used and support from 74 percent of Americans, all who believe in taking action.
Endnotes:
1. National Research Council. “Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts, and Choices.” Made in partnership with The Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, 2012, doi.org/10.17226/14673.
2. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action. 19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/cirareport.pdf
3. Mathur, Aparna. 2019. “Rethinking the Green New Deal: Using Climate Policy to Address Inequality.” National Tax Journal 72(4) 693–722.
4. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Climate Change Indicators. www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions
5. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2019. How much of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are associated with electricity generation? www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=77&t=11
6. US Forest Service. Forests and Carbon Storage. Climate Change Resource Center. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/forests-carbon
7. Canadell, Josep G., and Michael R. Raupach. 2008. “Managing Forests for Climate Change Mitigation.” Science 320(5882) 1456-1457.
8. Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation. 2019. Restoration: The Critical Solution to Climate Change. www.leonardodicaprio.org/about/
9. Burney, Nelson E. 2010. Carbon Tax and Cap-and-trade Tools: Market-based Approaches for Controlling Greenhouse Gases. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
10. Western Climate Imitative. 2019. Annual Report 2018. www.wci-inc.org/docs/Board-2018AnnualReport-EN-20190514.pdf
11. Benoit, Jean-Yves, and Claude Côté. 2015. “Essay by the Québec Government on Its Cap-and-Trade System and the Western Climate Initiative Regional Carbon Market: Origins, Strengths and Advantages.” UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 33(1).
12. Moghavem, Nuriel. 2018. “The California Cap-and-Trade Program: A Model Policy for Promoting Environmental Justice Using Accountability for Reasonableness.” American Journal of Bioethics 18(3): 57–59.
13. The White House. 2012. Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standards. Office of the Press Secretary. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-MPG-fuel-efficiency-standard
14. Marlon, Jennifer, et al. “Yale Climate Opinion Maps - U.S. 2016.” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, Yale University, 2016, climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/.
15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C. www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/07/SR15_SPM_version_stand_alone_LR.pdf