climate policy

Over a month since passing the Energy and Commerce Committee, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act last Friday June 26^th.  With a 219-212 majority vote, the bill now goes before the Senate where it faces tough opposition.  In order to pass into President Obama’s hands, the bill must get 60 of the 100 Senate votes in favor of the bill and not a simple majority as in the House.  The vote in the House squeaked by largely along party lines with 8 Republicans breaking ranks and voting for the bill and 44 Democrats voting against it.

We at Sierra Business Council’s Forest Carbon Blog will be staying on top of the developments of this landmark bill that would regulate greenhouse gas emissions and transform how energy is produced and used in the US.  Stay tuned for more updates on climate policy and forests in the Sierra Nevada.

It’s an exciting time to be involved in the carbon world.  Historic legislation that would create a mandatory cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide emissions in the US has passed the House Committee of Energy and Commerce, and just yesterday was filed with the Rules Committee by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, dubbed ACES or Waxman-Markey after the bill’s sponsors, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), would regulate CO₂ emissions for the first time in US history.  If the details of the 946-page beast escape you, check out this quick Grist summary.

The bill has been supported by many as a first step, but also criticized as an expensive compromise that is too watered down in its emission and renewable energy targets to be significant in halting climate change.  The CO₂ emission reduction targets in Waxman-Markey of 80% below 2005 emission levels are well below the IPCC recommendation of a reduction to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.  The difference between the two emissions scenarios is largely a question of political and economic feasibility, not just the best science, as explained in this article.

If ACES won’t fully mitigate climate change, then the key to the success of the bill hinges on what adaptation strategies it lays out.  And here there is room for optimism.  The bill establishes a National Climate Change Adaptation Council and National Climate Change Adaptation Program that will distribute periodic assessment reports, chaired through NOAA.  Funding for these adaptation measures would come from the sale of emission permits, with 2-8% of the total revenue going to domestic and international adaptation.

The question of adaptation is particularly salient in the Sierra Nevada, where climate impacts are predicted to be significant.  The latest science from the California Climate Change Center predicts a 25-40% reduction in snowpack by mid century, earlier spring melt and increased risk of flooding, and a 12-52% increase in the number of large wildfires by the end of the century.  Our Sierra Nevada forest ecosystems have survived for thousands of years.  But are they resilient enough to weather the 3-10.5°F of predicted warming?  Forest carbon projects are unique in that they both mitigate and adapt to a changing climate - making them an appealing form of offsets.  They mitigate climate change by trapping and storing CO₂ long-term, and they adapt to climate change by promoting healthy, sustainably managed, old-growth structure forests that reduce fire risk and promote a wealth of other environmental co-benefits.  The more resilient our forests, the better they can weather a changing climate.

So yes, ACES is a compromise, but what legislation isn’t?  Perhaps the issue of compromise was best stated by New York Times writer Paul Krugman in a May 2009 Op-Ed column, “Waxman-Markey is imperfect, it’s disappointing in some respects, but it’s action we can take now. And the planet won’t wait.”  Well said, Mr. Krugman.  The forests of the Sierra Nevada won’t wait either.