Open Letter to Senator Boxer

This is an open letter to Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which Sen. Boxer is the chair:


To Senator Boxer and her colleagues:

You will soon begin crafting historic legislation to combat global climate change, shrink our country's emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs), and reduce our reliance on coal, petroleum, and other "dirty" contributors to our nation's extremely large carbon footprint, which today amounts to fully one-quarter of the world's.

The House of Representatives recently passed its climate bill, called Waxman-Markey after its principal sponsors. Groundbreaking as Waxman-Markey is, I personally don't think it's good enough. I would like to tell you why I believe the Senate needs to do better.

Waxman-Markey as passed by the House would shrink U.S. GHG emissions by 17 percent in 2020, from a 2005 baseline. In part, presumably, since other countries' emissions will continue to rise between now and 2020, the Department of Energy says Waxman-Markey would reduce worldwide emissions in 2020 by just 3 percent. In my opinion, that's not enough. Our country needs more stringent climate legislation than Waxman-Markey.


Waxman-Markey, to its credit, creates a cap-and-trade system for U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs. Cap and trade is, say many experts, the right way to go. Unlike a "carbon tax," it sets a definite target for GHG emissions. Unlike outright command-and-control limits on GHG emissions, it achieves reductions at the lowest possible cost.

The "cap" in "cap and trade" designates how many tons of carbon dioxide and other GHGs can be emitted by covered U.S. companies each year. Each ton of GHG emissions would require a covered entity that is responsible for engendering or emitting it to surrender one so-called "allowance" that has previously been issued by the U.S. government.

Allowances would be either given away or auctioned to the firms that are covered by the cap-and-trade legislation, or to other, non-covered entities. Entities possessing allowances might use them to cover their carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions, or they might optionally sell their excess allowances on the open market. This is the "trade" part of "cap and trade." It would minimize the economic cost to society of complying with the "cap" by triggering market forces, i.e., supply and demand. The market would insure that covered sectors of the economy attain a lowest-possible-cost solution to lowering U.S. GHG emissions by the intended amount.


The problem with Waxman-Markey is not that it uses a cap-and-trade approach. It is that deeper cuts in GHG emissions are needed. Instead of cuts in U.S. emissions that would amount to reducing the world's GHG output by 3 percent, the goal ought to be for the U.S. to provide at least a 4.25 percent reduction in the world's GHG emissions by 2020, based on 2005 levels of emissions.

The U.S. emits 25 percent, or one quarter, of the world’s greenhouse gases (GHGs). If we cut our 2005-level GHG emissions by 17 percent as of 2020, as Waxman-Markey envisions, the world as a whole ought to see (one would think) a 4.25 percent reduction, since 4.25 percent is one quarter of 17 percent. If the the world's total GHG emissions are in fact reduced by only 3 percent by the Waxman-Markey reductions, as the Department of Energy says, the reason must be that other countries' emissions are expected to rise between now and 2020, thus counteracting some of our reductions.

A 4.25 percent reduction in 2020 levels of world GHG emissions, if undertaken by the U.S. at this time, would be aimed in part at offsetting increased GHG emissions elsewhere, in places like China and Indonesia. If we wanted to provide a 4.25 percent cut to the world's GHG emissions, we'd need a 24 percent cut in U.S. emissions, by my calculations, by 2020.

Better still, how about having this country assert its world leadership by undertaking fully a 5 percent reduction in world greenhouse gas emissions by 2020? For a 5 percent worldwide reduction, a reduction of a bit more than 28 percent here at home would be needed.

I am hoping that you, the members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, will agree with my assessment: Waxman-Markey, though a big step in the right direction, needs to be beefed up by your chamber.


The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has the following members:

Democrats:

• Barbara Boxer - California (Chairman)
• Max Baucus - Montana
  
• Thomas R. Carper - Delaware
  
• Frank R. Lautenberg - New Jersey
  
• Benjamin L. Cardin - Maryland
  
• Bernard Sanders - Vermont
  
• Amy Klobuchar - Minnesota
  
• Sheldon Whitehouse - Rhode Island
  
• Tom Udall - New Mexico
  
• Jeff Merkley - Oregon
  
• Kirsten Gillibrand - New York
  
• Arlen Specter - Pennsylvania
  

Republicans:

• James M. Inhofe - Oklahoma (Ranking Member)
• George V. Voinovich - Ohio
  
• David Vitter - Louisiana
  
• John Barrasso - Wyoming
  
• Mike Crapo - Idaho
  
• Christopher S. ("Kit") Bond - Missouri
  
• Lamar Alexander - Tennessee
  

They need to hear from Americans concerned to reduce our "carbon footprint" and stabilize the climate and the economic and geopolitical environment that our children will inherit.