The efforts to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have been driven mainly by emission goals and targets. This paper tries to describe what has been done in the United States, as a foundation for comparison with actions taken in the European Union (EU). This foundation may help the process of identifying ways to cooperate and jointly innovate in addressing the shared global problem of climate change.
All opinions and comments that may appear in the content of this paper are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the outlook of the Congressional Research Service or the Library of Congress.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
In 2006, Maryland joined RGGI, and Pennsylvania may join in 2007.
- 2.
EU Commission. A New Start for the Lisbon Strategy. EUROPA Growth and Jobs. January 20, 2006. p. 1.
- 3.
ETS was established by Directive #2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and European Council on October 13, 2003.
- 4.
Europa. European Commission (Environment). Questions and Answers on Emissions Trading and National Allocation Plans. (Memo/05/84) March 8, 2005. p. 1.
- 5.
EU Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. Winning the Battle Against Global Climate Change. [COM (2005) 35 final] February 9, 2005. p. 17.
- 6.
Council of the European Union. Presidency Conclusions. March 23, 2005. (Matter #IV, Climate Change, paragraphs 43–46, pp. 15–16).
- 7.
EU Commission, Winning the Battle, pp. 6–7.
- 8.
EU European Council, Presidency Conclusions. (Matter #II, Mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy, paragraph 19, p. 6).
- 9.
EU Commission, Winning the Battle, p. 7.
- 10.
EU Commission (Environment). Climate Change: Start of the Second European Climate Change Program. October 24, 2005. p. 1.
- 11.
EurActiv (Online EU News). EU’s Second Climate Change Program to Put Onus on Technology. October 24, 2005. p. 2.
- 12.
In January 2006, the Euro was valued at about $1.21.
- 13.
EU Commission (Research). Green Energy Sector Comes Together to Examine its Research Agenda. November 21, 2005. p. 2.
- 14.
Refocus (Elsevier). Research Investment for Renewables will Promote Sustainable Energy in Europe. November 30, 2005. p. 1.
- 15.
European Commission. Dimas, Stavros. Climate Change: Montreal and Beyond. (Speech/06/9) Presented at European Parliament Debate. January 16, 2006. p. 4.
- 16.
US Department of Energy (DOE). Energy Information Administration (EIA). Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004. December 2005. Table ES2. p. x. [http://ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057304.pdf].
- 17.
In 1990, energy-related CO2 accounted for 81% of total US GHG emissions in CO2 equivalence terms. In 2004, energy-related CO2 share grew to 82% of total GHG, p. x.
- 18.
DOE. EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (Early Release). Table 18, Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Sector and Source. December 12, 2005.[http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html].
- 19.
DOE. EIA. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, p. 14.
- 20.
The White House. Global Climate Change Policy Book. February 2002. p. 5.
- 21.
The White House. Climate Policy Book, p. 1.
- 22.
CO2-equivalent emissions is used as a universal unit measure, representing the effect of methane, nitrous oxides, and other non-CO2 greenhouse gases in terms of an equivalent amount of CO2 emissions.
- 23.
The Administration explains that the 18% goal represents a 4% acceleration above the previous trend.
- 24.
This change is illustrated in a chart prepared by Mr. James Connaughton, Chair of the US Council on Environmental Quality. Presentation at the Center for European Studies. November 21, 2005. Available on the web (p. 5) at [http://www.ceps.be/files/USClimateChange211105.ppt#497,5, Climate Policy Components].
- 25.
The White House. Climate Policy Book, p. 5.
- 26.
US Department of State. Effective US Actions to Combat Climate Change. Op-Ed for Les Echos, by Craig Roberts Stapleton, Ambassador to France. August 25, 2005. p. 1.
- 27.
The Draft Plan is on the web at [http://www.climatetechnology.gov/stratplan/draft/index.htm].
- 28.
Bodman, Samuel W. et al. Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration. US Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP): Strategic Plan. September 2005. p. iii.
- 29.
CCTP Strategic Plan, Chap. 10.
- 30.
These programs and initiatives are illustrated in Fig. 10-3 (p. 211) of the CCTP Strategic Plan.
- 31.
CCTP Strategic Plan, Chap. 10.
- 32.
The comments are posted on the web at [http://www.climatetechnology.gov/]. See for example, comments number 4, 14, 22, 25, and 26.
- 33.
Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Federal Climate Change Expenditures, Report to Congress. March 2005. p. 8. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy06_climate_change_rpt.pdf].
- 34.
Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Federal Climate Change Expenditures, Report to Congress. March 2005. p. 8. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy06_climate_change_rpt.pdf].
- 35.
The report also includes funding figures for a fourth category, climate change science activities.
- 36.
US Government Accountability Office (GAO). Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should be Clearer and More Complete. (GAO-05-461) August 2005. p. 34.
- 37.
GAO. Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding, summary page.
- 38.
OMB. Federal Climate Change Expenditures: Report to Congress. March 2005. pp. 12–13.
- 39.
The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. Fact Sheet: Action on Climate Change, Energy and Sustainable Development. July 8, 2005. (Cited on [USINFO.STATE.GOV], “G8 Climate Change Plan Serves Energy, Environment, Development.”)
- 40.
The Gleneagles Communique. [Agreement on] Climate Change, Energy, and Sustainable Development, pp. 1–3.
- 41.
Gleneagles Plan of Action: Climate Change, Energy, and Sustainable Development, p. 10.
- 42.
The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. Statement by the President. July 27, 2005.
- 43.
More information about the US role in the partnership is available at [http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate/c16054.htm].
- 44.
US DOE. Asia-Pacific Partnership Ministerial Statement; Remarks of Energy Secretary Bodman. (Energy/Gov/News) January 12, 2006. p. 2.
- 45.
US DOE. Energy Secretary Announces $52 Million Request for Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. (Press release) January 12, 2005. p. 2.
- 46.
US Congress. Congressional Research Service. Global Climate Change. (Issue Brief IB89005) Updated. September 7, 2005. p. 14.
- 47.
US Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Bingaman’s Climate Speech in Canada. December 7, 2005. p. 7.
- 48.
Congressional Quarterly Green Sheets (Global Environment). Senate May Act to Slow Greenhouse Gas Emissions. January 16, 2005. p. 2.
- 49.
Energy Washington Week. Senate Energy Committee Re-Thinking Proceeding with DARPA-Like DOE Program. January 18, 2005. p. 2.
- 50.
For example, in the early 1980s, several states enacted a variety of efficiency standards for consumer products and appliances, which ultimately led the respective manufacturing industries to seek a more uniform federal standard.
- 51.
For example, Texas emits more GHG than France and California emits more GHG than Brazil.
- 52.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Learning from State Action on Climate Change: November 2005. Update. p. 9.
- 53.
Pew Center, Learning from State Action, p. 3.
- 54.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Climate Action Team (CAT) Report to the Governor and Legislature. (Draft) December 2005. p. 9.
- 55.
California Energy Commission. PIER Program. [http://energy.ca.gov/pier/about.html].
- 56.
However, in December 2004, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers joined some California car dealers to file suit in federal district court against the regulation. They argue that the new law actually regulates fuel economy, not CO2, and federal law grants sole authority to the Department of Transportation to regulate fuel economy.
- 57.
For retail electricity suppliers, an RPS sets a minimum requirement (often a percentage) for electricity production from renewable energy resources or for the purchase of tradable credits that represent an equivalent amount of production. In 2002, California Senate Bill 1078 was enacted, setting a 20% RPS target for 2017. In 2005, due to electric utility progress toward that target, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) accelerated the 20% target to 2010, and set a new goal of 33% by 2020.
- 58.
CalEPA, CAT Report, pp. 36–37.
- 59.
CalEPA, CAT Report, pp. 41–42.
- 60.
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. June 1, 2005.
- 61.
This would be a 59 million ton reduction, or 11% below the business-as-usual projection.
- 62.
This would be a 145 million ton reduction, or 25% below the business-as-usual projection.
- 63.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legislature. December 8, 2005. Executive Summary.
- 64.
CalEPA. CAT Report. Revised Draft Chap. 8 on Economic Assessment. Posted January 12, 2006. p. 10.
- 65.
The Climate Action Team reports that it considered and rejected several tax proposals, including a “carbon” tax. As part of their electric utility restructuring process, many states have established a public benefit fund (PBF) program. This type of fund has been generally used to support renewable energy resources, energy efficiency initiatives, and low-income electricity support programs. Money for the fund is often obtained through a “system benefits charge,” or SBC. This is a small (for example, 0.2 cents/kWh) incremental cost that is charged to all electricity consumers. Existing state PBF funds are used in various ways that include rebates, public education, and R&D for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and other measures.
- 66.
CalEPA, Climate Action Team Report, p. iii.
- 67.
CalEPA, CAT Report, p. 75.
- 68.
Energy Washington Week. New Fuel, Vehicle Programs May Enjoy California Funding Windfall. January 12, 2006. p. 2. This newsletter reported that one state official said that the level of charge was too high, and it would be more likely that a charge of about one cent per gallon could gain approval, which would generate about $180 million.
- 69.
For example, about half of California’s electricity, accounting for nearly 10% of the state’s total emissions, is imported from neighboring states. CalEPA. CAT Report. Chap. 6, Cap and Trade Options. p. 61.
- 70.
CalEPA. Climate Report, pp. x–xi.
- 71.
CalEPA. CAT Report, pp. 65–72.
- 72.
The seven states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont.
- 73.
EnergyBiz Insider. Carbon Constraints are Coming. January 18, 2006. p. 2.
- 74.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Northeastern States Sign Pact to Limit Greenhouse Gases. [http://www.rggi.org/agreement.htm].
- 75.
ACEEE Grapevine Online. The Magnificent Seven: States Take the Lead on Global Warming. January 17, 2006. p. 2.
- 76.
The nine states are California, Connecticut, Maine, Masschusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. Further, Pew reports that North Carolina and Arizona have begun a process to formulate a plan.
- 77.
WCGGWI. [http://www.ef.org/westcoastclimate/].
- 78.
The states are Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
- 79.
Pew Center, Learning from States, pp. 6–8.
- 80.
Personal communication with Ms. Sylvia Bender, California Energy Commission. January 18, 2006.
- 81.
Pew Center, Learning from States.
- 82.
Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers. NEG/ECP Climate Program. [http://www.neg-ecp-environment.org/page.asp?pg=46].
- 83.
The US states are Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
- 84.
In 2003, a delegation of representatives from the PTP partnership visited countries of Northern Europe to gather ideas for climate-related initiatives.
- 85.
The WGA membership includes 18 states and three US-Flag Pacific Islands.
- 86.
Western Governors’ Association. Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative.[http://www.westgov.org/].
- 87.
WGA. Carbon Management Working Group. Advanced Coal Task Force. Report. p. 43. [http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/Coal-carbon.pdf].
- 88.
ACEEE. Cleaner Air Through Energy Efficiency: Analysis and Recommendations for Multi-Pollutant Cap-and-Trade Policies. (By Bill Prindle et al.) April 2005. p. vi.
- 89.
This issue of “lost revenue” was a key barrier to US electricity demand-side management programs in the 1990s. This issue involved much study of the potential to “decouple” electric utility profits from sales volume, as a means for ensuring that profits would flow to cost-effective energy savings resulting from energy efficiency measures.
- 90.
ACEEE. Cleaner Air, pp. vii–xi.
- 91.
ACEEE. Cleaner Air, p. viii.
- 92.
ACEEE. Cleaner Air, p. x.
- 93.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change. International Climate Efforts Beyond 2012: Report of the Climate Dialogue at Pocantico. November 25, 2005. p. 25.
- 94.
Pew Center. International Climate Efforts, pp. 13–14.
- 95.
Pew Center. International Climate Efforts, pp. 14–15.
- 96.
Pew Center. International Climate Efforts, p. 15.
- 97.
Pew Center. International Climate Efforts, p. 16.
- 98.
Pew Center. International Climate Efforts, pp. 16–17.
- 99.
EurActiv. Transatlantic Divide Remains Ahead of UN Climate Summit. November 25, 2005. p. 2.
- 100.
Enviros Consulting. Briefing Report on EU ETS. Cited in Energy Washington Week. EU Climate Change Emissions Trading Scheme Future Still Shaky. November 15, 2005.p. 2.
- 101.
The report says allowance prices stood at 20–25 euros per ton in November 2005, but that prices would have to rise to nearly 200 euros per ton for a new combined cycle gas turbine to be repaid over a period of 8 years.
Reference
Egenhofer, C. (2005, November). Technology in a post-2012 perspective (CEPS Policy Brief No. 86, p. 8). http://shop.ceps.be/BookDetail.php?item_id=1281
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sissine, F. (2009). US Climate Change Emissions Mitigation Policy: Energy Technology Push and Other US Policies. In: Welfens, P., Addison, J. (eds) Innovation, Employment and Growth Policy Issues in the EU and the US. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00631-9_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00631-9_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-00630-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-00631-9
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)