To avoid the worst impacts of global warming, the best available science suggests that the United States and other developed nations together must achieve emission cuts of at least 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-95 percent by 2050. But this legislation only sets a domestic target at approximately 4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Even with additional measures elsewhere in the legislation, the U.S. effort would still fall far short of the science.
“With this weak start it is clear that achieving the needed reductions would be impossible. To shirk our responsibility to control greenhouse gas emissions is a perilous gamble and an invitation to developing countries that they, too, can shirk their responsibilities – all but guaranteeing catastrophic climate change,” Radford says.
Rapid emissions reductions in the short-term are critical to avoiding catastrophic climate effects. Global warming has already triggered a series of negative feedback loops, such as Arctic melting in the North and raging wildfires in the South, that are accelerating the crisis. What’s more, new information about the threat global warming poses to the world is reported on nearly a daily basis. The World Bank, for example, just released a report that shows increased flooding due to global warming has put 52 million people in coastal areas throughout the developing world in danger and poses a $122 billion risk to the GDPs of these nations.
At first read the following provisions of the bill are particularly egregious in light of the urgency of the global warming crisis:
- Greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by less than 4 percent below 1990 levels, or in the best case by only 7 percent, by 2020;
- Polluting industries will receive hundreds of billions in subsidies in the form of allowances over the life of the bill;
- A dizzying array of carbon “offsets” offered to dirty industries could be used to effectively eliminate real reductions of greenhouse gas emissions for over a decade;
- A new generation of dirty coal-fired power plants will be supported through some $10 billion in ratepayer subsidies for carbon capture and sequestration (or CCS);
- A renewable electricity standard that would achieve less than states are likely to accomplish on their own.
Radford added, “Ultimately, with people in the U.S. and around the world looking for him to lead, President Obama needs to step in and demand meaningful, science-based policy capable of addressing the climate crisis.”
#####
CONTACTS: Damon Moglen, Greenpeace USA global warming campaign director, 202-352- 4223; Mike Crocker, Greenpeace USA media director, 202-215-8989
