Historic USA greenhouse gas emissions US emissions fell because of the pandemic. Chairman of Biden pledge Note: The chart shows the center of a range of projected emissions under current US policies Source: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Rhodium Group Historic USA greenhouse gas emissions US emissions fell because of the pandemic. Chairman of Biden pledge Note: The chart shows the center of a range of projected emissions under current US policies Source: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Rhodium Group Historical US Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions in the US fell due to the pandemic, but they are displayed to recover before it recedes over the next decade. Chairman of Biden pledge Note: The chart shows the center of a range of projected emissions under current US policies Source: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Rhodium Group Comment on this story Comment In 101 months, the United States will have achieved President Biden’s most important climate promise — otherwise he will have failed. It is currently severely lacking and with each passing month, it becomes harder to achieve until at some point – perhaps very soon – it will be practically impossibility. This is true for the United States, but also for the planet as nearly 200 nations struggle to address climate change on a rapidly shrinking timetable. That’s critical context for the news late last week that Sen. Joe Manchin III (DW.Va.), after months of negotiations with fellow Democrats, is questioning new climate policies. The stated reason for Manchin’s hesitation is rampant inflation, a serious concern. But there’s always a reason to delay action, and time is unforgiving when it comes to a warming climate. At the heart of the Biden administration’s climate policy is a pledge, made in 2021, to cut U.S. emissions by 50 to 52 percent by the end of 2030 — 101 months from this August — relative to 2005 levels. Achieving that goal would require a major reshaping of the American economy—millions of new electric cars on the road, transformations of key industries to rely more on renewable energy, and potentially millions of jobs focused on making that happen. Climate legislation making its way through the Senate would have accelerated that transition through enhanced tax credits for renewable energy and electric vehicles, among other energy-related incentives and provisions. Swift action is essential to maintain consistency with the 2015 Paris climate agreement, in which nations agreed to take significant action to avoid levels of global warming associated with severe climate impacts. Scientists in general they agree that emissions need to be roughly halved by 2030 to avoid these effects. The goals remain. But after Manchin’s move, legislation to achieve it appears to have been shelved indefinitely. “The current official US targets are ambitious,” said John Sterman, an energy policy expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “They are also essential to creating a prosperous, healthy climate. And the policies that the administration had proposed—transportation, buildings, etc.—had the potential to get us there.” “But with Sen. Manchin in place … we’re not going to be able to do that,” Sterman said. In many ways, in fact, thinking that we have until 2030 to reduce emissions to the target dramatically overestimates how much time there actually is. As more time passes, the amount of emissions to be reduced increases in the remaining months. It’s like a ship taking on water — if you wait to start baling, you have to bale faster and faster, and if you wait long enough, at some point you no longer have a chance to reach shore. The Biden target was already significant. So far, the United States has reduced emissions by only a fraction of what the government intends. Emissions in 2005 were 6.6 billion tons of greenhouse gases, and emissions in 2019 and 2020 were 5.8 and 5.2 billion tons, respectively, according to official national figures. See what President Biden is doing to address climate change So current cuts from 2005 levels are either 12 or 21 percent, depending on whether you use 2020 emissions figures (which represent the latest official numbers). That’s a real issue because emissions were down in 2020 due to the coronavirus-related shutdowns, but they’re recovering — and no one expects that hit to matter much for the long-term trend. Putting aside the pandemic and instead following through on what was accomplished through 2019, the Biden administration would have to cut emissions by about 2.5 billion tons of greenhouse gases in just over eight years. This is slightly more than the emissions of two Japans or one India. And yet it was at least close to possible, analysts say, through a combination of current dynamics and politics. A significant part of the target can be achieved by driving the continued downward trend in emissions, which reflect government policies and actions taken by the private sector, particularly the energy industry, to become more sustainable. For example, a recent analysis by the Rhodium Group, a research firm that closely tracks emissions policies, found that the United States is already on track to reduce emissions by about 24 to 35 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. But that’s nowhere near enough to deliver on the promise. The current implosion of negotiations with Manchin “makes that more difficult and makes any additional actions by the executive branch that much more critical. The stakes are now much higher,” said John Larsen, partner at Rhodium. Several analyzes have suggested that policies such as those contained in the Senate legislation it could account for about a billion more tons annually Reducing emissions in the US. “We estimate that the Senate budget deal would likely reduce emissions by about 800 million to 1 billion metric tons in 2030,” said Princeton University professor Jesse Jenkins, an energy policy expert and modeler. In Jenkins’ analysis, there would still be a gap, albeit a small one — of hundreds of millions of tons — to meet the Biden administration’s promise. Somewhat separate from all of this is what it means for Earth – after all, each major emitter must act differently. Progress, or lack thereof, will be questionable. The Climate Action Tracker, a tool created by a group of scientists to assess emissions progress, rates the US target as “nearly adequate”. This means that it is consistent, if other major emitters act with similar force, with keeping global global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. But it’s not enough to keep warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit), currently just a few ticks off the thermometer, the team says. Two degrees Celsius is serious, and 1.5 degrees is pretty bad too – but noticeably less so in some respects. In a 1.5 degree world, scientists say, there would be somewhat more time for small islands to adjust to sea level rise. There would be severe damage to coral reefs, but perhaps they would still exist in some areas. And the Arctic would still have summer sea ice most or all of the year — possibly avoiding one of the most dangerous feedbacks that could further amplify climate change. At 101 months, US shows are for sure it would be lower, but the issue has always been the speed of change. That’s why the death, for now, of climate legislation greatly increases the likelihood that the United States will fall short of its goal. Sign up for the latest news on climate change, energy and the environment, delivered every Thursday
