Unlike existing environmental statutes that regulate air, water and land, a comprehensive law to address climate change is turning out to be far more complicated.
The reason: carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted from literally every human activity— driving cars, operating plants and factories, heating and cooling buildings, cooking food, and even breathing.
Moreover, there is currently no deployable technology to capture the billions of tons of emitted CO2 or to quickly and easily replace the massive amounts of fossil fuel energy that generates CO2 as a byproduct of its use.
Thus far, congressional efforts to manage CO2 and other greenhouse gases have focused on making definite reductions of the gases at any cost. The main framework being considered by Congress is a system called “cap and trade,” a purely regulatory approach of capping emissions and allowing those who have reduced emissions to receive credits that can be sold to entities that have not met their emission caps. Although a market-based system to control greenhouse gases is a valiant idea, if not executed properly we run the risk that these caps will unreasonably limit fossil fuel use while not providing the wherewithal to replace these fuels with low- or zero-carbon technologies.
To be sure, the U.S. can positively address greenhouse gas emissions. But doing so will cost a lot of money and will require a massive dedication to developing and deploying the technologies necessary to use fossil fuels cleanly and generate energy through alternative and renewable resources.
However, the tendency of Congressional leadership to view this issue only as one of emissions constraint and not one of energy replacement is a very high stakes game that could result in a nation so energy starved that the economy will decline, jobs will be lost to foreign competitors, and the U.S. will lose its competitive position in the world.
If the goal is to lower emissions of greenhouse gases in the environment in a manner that maintains a strong economy, then policy makers must clearly understand that: (1) emissions are tied to world-wide economic growth, and therefore any solution must be international in scope; and (2) concurrent with reductions in CO2 (fossil fuels), there must be a corresponding increase in the development and deployment of non-fossil fuels and other technologies.
It’s called “global” climate change for a reason
Any approach taken to reduce CO2 emissions must be international in scope. The rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere tracks U.S. and world energy demand, which is in turn being driven by economic development. Energy use is expected to triple from 2000 to 2100, and this energy use will be accompanied by a tripling of CO2 emissions. However, the lion’s share of increased emissions over this period will come from the developing world: developing countries will increase energy use and CO2 emissions by approximately 300 percent by 2100, compared to a 50 percent increase by the developed world. Perhaps the best illustration of this disparity is that, if all of the CO2 emissions from the developed world were eliminated, emissions of CO2 would still double by the end of the century.
Technology is the answer
Successfully managing greenhouse gas emissions depends on: (1) the accelerated development of replacement fuels and technologies; (2) the simultaneous ability to deploy these replacement fuels and technologies; and (3) building the energy infrastructure needed to use them.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that to combat climate change we will need to reduce our emissions from fossil fuels by approximately three-fourths by mid-century, the world will need to produce 30 to 40 terawatts of carbon-free energy. This is roughly three to four times as much power as is generated by all the fossil fuels used today. To maintain world-wide growth, reductions in the use of fossil fuels must be coordinated with the development of clean fossil technologies and non-fossil fuel substitutes. If this approach is ignored and fossil fuels are withdrawn, and there is no substitute fuel or technology, we run the risk of a lack of energy and severe economic harm.
Congress must also structure its regulatory processes to allow for the prompt deployment of these technologies. The NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) movement has effectively limited industry’s ability to site, construct, and operate fossil- and non-fossil energy sources alike. Ironically, many of the same entities pushing for a complete switch to clean energy sources are the ones holding up the permit processes to build wind farms and nuclear power plants.
The Global Energy Technology Strategy, published by Battelle Institute in 2007, charts a course forward. The strategy analyzes the mix of energy technologies needed to constrain the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to no more than 550 parts per million (ppm) by 2100. Battelle models a world moving from using fossil fuels to meet 80% of its energy needs to a world heavily reliant on nuclear, energy efficiency, non-biomass renewable energy, biomass and a healthy dose of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) that utilize carbon capture and sequestration.
What is striking from the study, however, is that very few of the needed technologies exist today. Congress must fund and stimulate research, development, and rapid deployment of new technologies and develop a regulatory structure that combats NIMBY to successfully slow and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The challenge ahead is enormous but achievable if we develop and deploy these new technologies world-wide.
William Kovacs is Vice President, Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Return to newsletter headlines
