Strengthen Warner-Lieberman To Meet 80 x 2050

Senators Lieberman and Warner have demonstrated superb bipartisan leadership in the fight against global warming with their draft proposal[1], a proposal which has greater prospect of becoming law than any bill introduced to date. 

Unfortunately, the proposal must be strengthened before it is introduced as legislation, otherwise it will fail to prevent the most damaging effects of climate change.  Here are the three key changes needed to strengthen the proposal.

Increase both 2020 and 2050 emission reduction targets.

• As proposed, Warner-Lieberman will reach at best 8% reduction below 2005 levels by 2020 and 56% by 2050 (as a result of the extensive exemptions built into the proposal). To its credit, the proposal calls for the National Academies of Science to periodically review reduction targets so that they are sufficient to forestall catastrophic impacts of global warming. 
• Please urge improvement so that the final bill applies economy-wide and reaches reductions of at least 15% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.  These targets are in concert with recent recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Without significant early-year reductions, draconian and possibly unattainable rates of reduction will be required in later decades.

Auction 100% of emission allowances.

• As proposed, Warner-Lieberman gives away 76% of allowances to polluters in year one (decreasing to 48% in 2035).  As the European carbon market has demonstrated, such allowance give-aways create windfall profits for polluters, drive down the value of the remaining allowances, drive up energy costs for consumers without offsetting benefit, and undermine market incentives for reducing pollution.  After carefully considering this issue, the majority of states within the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative will require 100% auctioning of emission allowances (ME, RI, VT, CT, NY, MA and, likely, NJ and NH).

To its credit, the proposal distributes auction proceeds to advanced energy technologies, carbon sequestration, clean transportation systems and technologies, adaptation for wildlife and waters, the reduction of other air pollutants, and to support domestic and international adaptation efforts for disadvantaged communities.   

• Please urge improvement so that 100% of emission allowances are auctioned, with proceeds used for public benefit.

Limit carbon offsets to 5% of required reductions.

• As proposed, polluters may “offset” 15% of their pollution by paying for projects that could take additional global warming out of the atmosphere, such as forest preservation, agricultural sequestration, the capping of landfills, and more.  While beneficial, such offsets could allow polluters to avoid any emission reductions until after 2020.
• Please urge improvement so that the bill limits offsets to not more than 5% of the actual reductions, rather than allowing polluters to achieve all of their early-year reductions through offsets.  The bill should also provide more detail on how to ensure that offsets are real, permanent, verifiable and additional.  The inherent difficulty in proving that offsets meet these requirements is another reason to strictly limit their use.

Please Endorse “Gold Standard” Carbon Cap & Trade Bill

The “gold standard” for CO2 emissions target is an 80 percent reduction by 2050.  National legislation embodying these goals has been introduced in both chambers of Congress.

You (and/or your organization) can play a critical role in formally endorsing the 80 x 2050 policy goal by signing the attached letter and faxing copies to our delegation.  The endorsement letter would be for the policy goal, not for any specific legislation.

Below is background and rationale.  Please be in touch if you would like more detailed information or a brief presentation by me or relevant science experts. 

Best Regards,

Jim Rubens

Union of Concerned Scientists

(603) 643-6059

(603) 359-3300 c

JimRubens@aol.com

Rationale for 80 Percent by 2050 CO2 Emissions Reduction

The recently-released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment changed the debate on global warming.  IPCC summary[2]    UCS Summary[3]   The 2,500 climate experts involved found it over 90 percent likely that human-caused emissions of heat trapping gasses explain most of the observed global warming of the past fifty years. 

The IPCC also greatly improves confidence in the accuracy of future warming projections.  Net, if we are to avoid the risk of seriously disruptive climate changes, we can no longer delay action for several years and can no longer limit policy to the more modest carbon reductions embodied in legislative proposals from prior years.

UCS Analysis: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change

To avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change, the world must stabilize the concentration of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere at no more than 450 parts per million, according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and scientists at Stanford University and Texas Tech University.  Summary report[4].  Full study[5].  This limit aims to avoid exceeding a 2°F rise above current temperatures, which is only about 1°F above the increase already “baked in the cake” by prior emissions.  This increased temperature is likely as warm as the earth has been in the past million years. 

Stabilizing above this temperature would likely lead to severe risks to natural systems and human health.  These risks include non-linear effects which could accelerate warming, such as more rapid melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, Gulfstream (thermohaline) shutdown, methane emissions from thawing tundra, water shortages for hundreds of millions of people, and the extinction of 30 percent of earth’s species.

Staying under the 450 ppm threshold requires cutting global emissions of heat-trapping gases to 50 to 80 percent of today's levels by mid-century.[6]  Given that the United States leads the world in both absolute and per capita emissions, we must chart the technology path, cutting our emissions by 80 percent below current levels by mid century.  This allows 10-20 years’ catch-up time for developing nations.  As you can see from the studies, the 80 percent cut is the minimum necessary to avoid the most dangerous impacts.

The 80 x 2050 goal is achievable if we begin immediately to reduce global warming pollution, maintaining emission reductions of about 4 percent per year.  However, if we delay, we will be forced to make much steeper and more costly cuts in future years.  To achieve required reductions for the first two decades, we can use existing technology, such as replacing fossil-fired electric generation with wind, biomass, tidal, geothermal, and solar sources, making buildings more efficient, and increasing fuel economy in cars and trucks. Expanded coal and nuclear are not necessary during these two decades. 

If legislation embodying the 80 x 2050 goal is structured properly, we can curb heat-trapping gas emissions while boosting the regional economy and enhancing our energy security.  America has achieved similar technological transformation in the past.  In 1905, 3 percent of households had electricity and virtually none had cars.  Less than 50 years later, virtually all did.  Our actions today will determine the climate our grandchildren will inherit.

Potential New Hampshire Impacts

The Union of Concerned Scientists lead a team of more than 50 scientists and economists to produce the Northeast Regional Climate Impact Assessment, the most refined and detailed projections to date on the impact of global warming on the Northeast and New Hampshire.  Full report, 146 pages[7]    New Hampshire summary, 6 pages[8]

NECIA models two energy pathways:

• A high emissions scenario, featuring continued global dependence on fossil fuels, where CO2 rises to 940 ppm by 2100; and
• A low emissions scenario, where CO2 rises to 550 ppm.  Under this scenario, we can avoid the worst impacts on New Hampshire’s climate, protecting North Country winter tourism and our coastline, and avoiding dangerously sweltering summers.
• New Hampshire impacts projected below are for the last third of this century under the high emissions scenario, unless otherwise noted.

Climate Impacts

• New Hampshire summers feel like North Carolina.  Low emissions:  Western MA.
• Winter temperatures will increase by 9-13°F, half that for low emissions.
• Summer temperatures will increase by 6-14°F, half that for low emissions.
• Extreme heat:  66 days over 90°F annually (now 10 days).  Low emissions, 32 days.
• Extreme heat:  23 days over 100°F (now 1 day).  Low emissions, 6 days.
• Drought of 1-3 month duration will occur each year, Low emissions: slight increase.
• Heavy precipitation events (>2” rain falling in 48 hours or less) increase by 12-13 percent.  During the wettest 5 days of the year, 20 percent more rain will fall.
• Faster spring melts will yield 80 percent increase in high-flow events, with increase in flooding risk.
• Resulting flooding will have costly, unquantified impacts on infrastructure such as municipal sewage systems, dams, drinking water, roads, increasing risk of runoff of untreated sewage into waterways and drinking water sources.  Costly engineering retrofits and upgrades will be required.

Human Health Impacts

• Extreme heat.  In 6 of 10 years ending 2003, heat was the leading weather-related killer in the United States.  Natural-causes death rates increase 8 percent during multi-day 90°F plus heat waves.  Most acute effects on growing elderly population.
• Asthma.  One in ten of us now suffer from asthma.  Pollen and other allergens increase both due to longer growing seasons and plant response to increased CO2. 
• Poor air-quality days, now 6 per year in southern New Hampshire, would increase to 24 per year.  Under the low emissions scenario, bad air days would increase to 9.
• Vector-borne disease.  Mosquito-transmitted West Nile Virus outbreaks likely to increase due to combination of drought, heat and extreme precipitation events.  One in 150 infected people develop serious illness. 
• As we have seen in the past three years, flooding associated with extreme precipitation events takes human life.

Winter Recreation Impacts

• Snow cover.  Statewide loss of half of snow covered days, 25 percent loss under low emissions.  30 day snow cover limited to within White Mountains and north.
• Rainy, slushy winters.  20-30 percent increase in winter precipitation, a much greater percentage falling as rain, not snow.  Low emissions, slight increase in winter precip.
• Two-month snowmobile season would be confined to White Mountains and north.
• Economically-viable downhill skiing eliminated from New Hampshire.  Under low emissions, retained in White Mountains.  New Hampshire’s $650 million ski industry has remained healthy to date with snowmaking, now covering 75% of terrain.  Winter 2006-07 threat:  too warm even to make much snow until February.

Coastal Impacts

• Sea level rise.  Most recent data projects 2-4.5 feet.[9]  However, this projection does not account for accelerating melting of major ice sheets since 2000. 
• Coastal flooding.  Storm waves will inundate far more deeply into our coastline.  Unquantified impacts include beach erosion, damage to Hampton Beach, risk of salinization of coastal freshwater aquifers and salt marshes, loss of Great Bay, property damage and outright loss of habitable coastal lands.
• Impacts elsewhere.  Using low-range projections of sea level rise, downtown Boston likely to see today’s 100 year flood each 1-2 years, with the new 100 year flood inundating significant sections of the downtown.  (See pages 20-21 for graphics).  The new 100 year flood will inundate all of Atlantic City, New Jersey. 

Marine Impacts

• Sea surface temperature increase by 6-8°F, 4-5°F under low emissions scenario. 
• Coastal fisheries.  Lobster-Shell Disease, already in spots in Maine, likely to move northward more rapidly.  Gulf of Maine will become marginal habitat for young cod.  George’s Bank will become almost entirely unfavorable for cod.
• Red tides could increase. 

Forest Impacts

• Entire loss of spruce/fir forests, both scenarios.
• Suitable habitat for maple/beech/birch confined to White Mountains and north.  Southern half of NH will be better suited to oak/hickory forests.  Lower emissions scenario, we retain maple/beech/birch forests statewide.
• Sugar maple, with its iconic blazing fall display, to lose all suitable habitat below the White Mountains region.  Retains habitat statewide under lower emissions. 
• Most of the remaining maple syrup industry will migrate into Canada.
• Hemlock woolly adelgid, now confined to parts of southernmost New Hampshire, likely to invade statewide, eliminating most hemlock habitat in NH.
• Other pests and pathogens benefiting from global warming:  emerald ash borer, spruce budworm, pine bark beetle, gypsy moth, balsam woolly adelgid, Dutch elm disease, white pine blister rust, and beech bark disease.
• Loss of forest species including Bicknell thrush, Canada lynx, snowshoe hare.
• Loss of winter snow cover and unfrozen soils will make timber harvests more difficult.

Agricultural Impacts

• Growing season will increase by 6 weeks, 4 weeks under low emissions.  Agricultural productivity likely to increase.
• Northward invasion of weeds and pests, requiring more costly controls than at present.  For example, the suitable habitat for the phenomenally aggressive kudzu vine will extend through most of New Hampshire.  Corn infesting flea beetle/Stewart’s wilt will extend through most of NH.
• Loss of habitat for cold water fish, acute for brook trout.

Only These Bills Meet the 80 x 2050 Goal

·         In the Senate, the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S. 309)

·         In the House, Representative Waxman's Safe Climate Act (HR 1590)

Representatives Hodes and Shea-Porter are co-sponsors of the Waxman bill.  Senator Gregg is strong supporter of carbon cap legislation and has voted in prior sessions for other versions.  Senator Sununu is a co-sponsor of the Carper four-pollutant bill, which calls for modest CO2 emissions reductions by utilities only.

High Level Corporate Support

Alcoa, Alcan, AIG, BP, Boston Scientific, Caterpillar, Conoco-Phillips, Chrysler, Deere & Co, Duke Energy, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Exelon, Ford Motor, FPL Group, General Electric, General Motors, Marsh, Johnson & Johnson, PG&E and PepsiCo, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto, Shell, Siemens, Xerox this year have all endorsed[10] mandatory reductions of 60-80 percent on carbon emissions by 2050.  These companies have all concluded that such reductions can be achieved in a manner that will foster, not harm American economic growth.

Selected New Hampshire Endorsers as of  DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" September 30, 2007

Please fax copies of your attached endorsement letter to:

Senator Judd Gregg, 202-224-4952

Senator John Sununu, 202-228-4131

Jim Rubens, UCS,  603-643-0144   or e-mail endorsement approval to JimRubens@aol.com