US National Research Council calls for urgent action to price carbon

| Sourced From |

The premier scientific agency in the US, the National Research Council, yesterday released its most comprehensive study of climate change to date, warning that climate change is largely caused by human activity and that the US must act urgently to cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impact of inevitable temperature rises.

The research is summarised in five major new reports, two of which are to be released later this year, that have been produced by the Council in response to requests from Congressional Committees currently considering proposed climate change legislation.

Each of the reports makes an unequivocal case for urgent action to tackle climate change and attempts to draw a line under recent criticism of climate scientists sparked by the so-called Climategate scandal.

One of the reports, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, states that “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for – and in many cases is already affecting – a broad range of human and natural systems”.

It goes on to argue that while the scientific process is never “closed”, climate scientists should increasingly focus on improving understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change in a way that can help policy makers act to limit and adapt to rising temperatures.

A separate report, entitled Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change, warns that a major departure from “business as usual” is required to avoid dangerous levels of climate change. It advises that the US adopt a greenhouse gas emissions “budget” to help it manage down emission levels, and dismisses suggestions it should wait for other countries to act, predicting that “strong US actions to reduce emissions will help encourage other countries to do the same”.

The report stops short of recommending a specific target, but suggests a range of potential targets broadly in line with the 80 per cent cut in emissions by 2050 advocated by the Obama administration.

In an intervention that could bolster the chances of the draft American Power Act passing through Congress, the report voices clear support for some form of carbon pricing system. “A carbon-pricing system is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions,” it states. “Either cap and-trade, a system of taxing emissions, or a combination of the two could provide the needed incentives.”

It adds that any carbon pricing mechanism will have to be supported by a raft of policies designed to enhance energy efficiency and accelerate the deployment of renewable, nuclear, and carbon capture technologies.

The final report released yesterday, entitled Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, warns climate change impacts are already being observed across the US and argues that policymakers need to act now to increase investment in climate adaptation measures that can act as “an insurance policy against an uncertain future”.

The reports were welcomed by Senator John Kerry, co-sponsor of the American Power Act, who issued a statement hailing the Council’s work as “yet another wake-up call on the threats of global climate change”.

In related news, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) yesterday released a major new report warning that 38 US states are collectively “haemorrhaging” tens of billions of dollars a year importing foreign coal.

The study found that 38 states are net importers of domestic and foreign coal, while 11 states spend more than $1bn a year on imported coal with ratepayers in Georgia spending $2.6bn on net coal imports in 2008.

The UCS argues that the economies of those states reliant on imported coal would be better served if they invested the money in local renewables projects and energy efficiency programmes.

“Importing coal to produce electricity is a drain on state economies,” said Jeff Deyette, the assistant director of energy research and analysis in UCS’s Climate and Energy Program and a report co-author. “Ratepayer dollars are diverted out of state instead of spent locally on renewable energy projects and energy efficiency measures that would benefit residents directly.”

Posted on May 25, 2010 · in USA

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Leave a Comment

Additional comments powered by