Update 12/30/08: For more up-to-date information on Sightline’s work with the Western Climate Initiative, check out our blog series “Inside WCI” or our post “Sightline’s Line of the Western Climate Initiative.”
The Western Climate Initiative is a path-breaking effort. Insufficient federal progress prompted seven states and two provinces to join together to reduce climate pollution by means of an economy-wide cap and trade program. It’s a momentous opportunity, and Sightline has been working hard to ensure that it’s a success.
Unfortunately, there’s now cause for serious concern.
Yesterday evening, WCI released its draft proposal (pdf). It proposes an initial cap that would cover less than half of the region’s total emissions. And most surprisingly, WCI does not recommend including emissions from transportation fuels, by far the largest source of climate pollution in the West. [Update 3/7: The recommendation doesn’t exclude transportation precisely, but rather defers the decision until further economic studies are completed.]
The proposal is at odds with WCI’s own stated principles that include a commitment to cover “as many emissions sources as practical.” And for an effort born of frustration with federal lawmakers, it’s bizarre that the proposal is significantly smaller in scope than recent federal bills, including Leiberman-Warner.
There are no big technical challenges to including transportation fuels. In fact, the WCI admits that while there are a couple of hurdles, it’s administratively feasible to include transportation emissions. So what’s going on?
No one knows for sure.
Find this article interesting? Support more research like this with a gift!
I have every reason to believe that Washington’s and Oregon’s representatives are taking the responsible approach; that they’re negotiating for a broad scope to include transportation fuels.
That’s as it should be, since without reductions from the transportation sector, it will be virtually impossible for the Northwest states to reach their climate goals. In fact, fully 47 percent of Washington’s emissions come from the transportation sector alone.
Perhaps other states are reluctant to go along with a true economy-wide cap on carbon. Perhaps there are misunderstandings about how price affects demand. Perhaps there’s simply fear of political fallout from pinching oil companies.
Or perhaps I’m being too hard on WCI. The truth is, it’s very hard to tell what, exactly, they intend to do in the future. In places, they seem to want to include transportation, but then they also want to consider some other, untried, options as a substitute for an enforceable cap—things like low-carbon fuel standards. They seem to want further economic analysis, and then they seem to gesture at excluding transportation if it’s deemed that prices will rise.
Mostly, WCI seems to want to delay making a decision. But it’s a decision so fundamental to the program that it affects every other decision. In fact, it jeopardizes the integrity of the entire initiative.
Maybe the best way of understanding what’s going on is buried at the end of a technical appendix:
A problem with covering oil upstream is that the only compliance options available to regulated entities are buying allowances, selling or blending non-fossil fuels, or reducing fuel sales.
That’s supposed to be a problem. But that’s the whole point of a cap and trade program. That’s the whole mechanism for reducing emissions. Oil companies will get three—count ’em three—options. They can pollute less; they can sell cleaner fuel; or they can buy pollution permits from other companies who will reduce their own pollution instead.
We can be flexible and creative about our approach, but there’s no free lunch. If we don’t reduce our climate pollution, we could be facing some unpleasant consequences. We know what the problem is, and we know how to fix it. The only question now is whether we have the spine for good policy.
Postscript: if you want to get down and dirty with Sightline’s argument for WCI’s appropriate scope, here’s the full monty.
Greg San Martin
Eric, your assessment of the current situation is both powerful and timely. We stand at an important crossroads. Over the next 18 months, Congress may fully frame climate legislation. The WCI consensus on how to treat transportation sends an important signal to Congress from the western half of North America. If that signal does not clearly state our unwavering support for an economy wide approach (one that fully includes the transport sector), then the WCI will have been a failure.I’d ask that you develop two pie charts for a side by side comparison. The first chart would show total Western US GHG emissions by sector (% and tons) while the second chart would show the same for the Eastern US. I think we’d see that in the East, power sector emissions are twice as large as the next largest sector (transport). In the West, we’d see a stark contrast – transport is twice as large as the power sector. I’d also ask that you produce these same pie charts as you think they would look in 2020 (assuming Congress follows the lead of the WCI and fails to include transport under the cap it designs). As worldwide GHG emissions accelerate past 50 billions tons per year, the Americans and our closest ally (the Canadians) appear intent to set emission reduction targets that actually increase our emissions in 2020. Thus, transport sector emissions are the one issue that uniquely distinguishes the West.We cannot accept defeat on such an important issue. We must continue to fight the good fight. The implication is that the modeling will be used to make some final recommendations. So, the modeling must show transport sector emissions in 2020 (with and without their inclusion under the cap). I think it would be helpful for the WCI to fully disclose which WCI advisors are making the recommendations to exclude the transport sector. These entities wield substantial influence and that influence on this matter should be fully documented and daylighted. My comments are based in part on the positions of the company I work for and part are my own views. My company’s views are available on the WCI website.
Eric:I don’t know how far you live from Delta British Columbia, but the Burns BOg Conservation Society is hosting a symposium on the South Fraser Perimeter Road that is part of the Gateway project in BC. It is a road that has the potential to destroy Burns Bog—the largest raised peat bog on the west coast of the Americas. In the process, it will affect the quality of life in the Lower Mainland of BC. The date for the Symposium is Sunday, April 27—the last day of Earth Week. WE have rented the Corporation of Delta’s municipal hall for the event.Is there a possibility that you could attend? If so, please let me know asap. We are having a strategy meeting this Saturday at the Society’s office.We are only a few miles from the Canada/USA border near Blaine and White Rock.
I had a dream to start my organization, nevertheless I didn’t have got enough of cash to do this. Thank heaven my friend told to use the business loans. Therefore I used the consolidation loans and made real my dream.