If all foreign offset provisions in the Waxman-Markey climate bill are used, the cap and trade regime would spend nearly three times more money overseas for carbon offset programs than it would invest in home-grown clean energy industries, technologies, and job creation.
Last week, our analysis showed that Waxman-Markey would, on average, invest between $6 to 9 billion annually in clean energy technology and energy efficiency between 2012-2025. These funds would be raised by auctioning a cumulative total of 8.4 billion emission allowances. This stands is contrast to the $41 billion in allowances that would be given to polluters each year, and it is far less than the $15 billion President Obama has promised for clean energy R&D.
But how do these clean energy investments stack up against Waxman-Markey’s spending on international offsets? The bill would allow polluting firms in the U.S. to finance emissions reductions overseas instead of reducing their own global warming pollution. The number of U.S. emissions that could be covered by foreign offsets every year is one billion tons, however, if too few domestic offsets are available, this number could rise to 1.5 billion tons. Breakthrough Institute analysis shows this could allow U.S. emissions to rise through 2030.
If all 1.5 billion foreign offset provisions are used each year between 2012-2025, this adds up to a cumulative total of 21 billion emission allowances. That’s 2.5 times times the allowances provided for clean energy during that period (8.4 billion). The table below compare allowances and potential funding under these scenarios, and the graph compares annual funding at an average allowance price of $15.
Whether or not these foreign emissions offsets would be legitimate — and whether U.S. dollars would be used honestly and effectively overseas — is beyond the scope of this post. However, it is worth quoting the famous study released last year by Stanford University on international offsets:
“between a third and two thirds” of emission offsets under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) — set up under the Kyoto treaty to encourage emissions reductions in developing nations — do not represent actual emission cuts.”
Click images to magnify:
Originally posted at the Breakthrough Institute
Please read this in response by Romm before making judgements
http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/22/waxman-markey-offsets-breakthrough-institute-shellenberger-nordhaus-media/
Unfortunately, Joe Romm has become the “enforcer” on this bill, aggressively attacking groups (including Greenpeace) who have tried to illuminate its shortcomings. We correct his misrepresentations here: http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/05/romm_attacks_breakthrough_for.shtml
Matt, you can simply take Joe Romm at his word (which also trashes Greenpeace as Teryn notes), or you can do some of your own independent thinking and analysis. Our analysis in each of these posts has been 100% transparent, and we welcome anyone who points out errors or inconsistencies.
As everyone here at IGHIH knows, there’s far too much at stake to not look honestly and critically at what this bill will or will not actually accomplish. For other respected voices who’ve taken a close look at the ACES bill and come away very concerned:
here’s a joint statement from…
Greenpeace USA * Friends of the Earth * Public Citizen * Citizen Power * Center for Biological Diversity * Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana * TURN—The Utility Reform Network * Sustainable Energy & Economy Network * Green Delaware * Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance * Massachusetts Forest Watch * Coal Moratorium Now! * Rainforest Action Network * International Rivers * Energy Justice Network
Here’s DailyKos blogger A. Siegel who says “we should be clear that the bill, as drafted, falls far short of what is necessary and, well, quite likely falls short of what is possible” and cites officials at the U.S. Energy Information Administration who corroborate the findings of our independent analysis of the ACES cap and trade and renewable electricity provisions.
And here’s climate blog, SolveClimate’s in-depth look at the provisions that protect the coal industry in the bill, “Clean Energy Climate Bill Gives Coal a Competitive Future.”
between a third and two thirds (…)do not represent actual emission cuts. That 100% margin of error. Maybe Michael Wara is correct but with margin of error like this the study is not serious. Don’t they have statistics dept at Stanford?
this discussion conveniently omits the fact that another billion tons of home-grown, job creation domestic offsets are also allowed in the cap a trade. And 1.5 billion foreign offsets will be allowed if and only if there are not enough domestic offsets.
Let’s compare apples and apples, not energy efficiency and foreign offsets.