The Big Secret: Climate Bills Result in No Meaningful Impact on
Global Temperature
World Climate Report, November 20, 2007
Three bills have been introduced to Congress which have as a goal
to slow the rate of global temperature rise, and in doing so, avert some type
of putative global climate catastrophe. They propose to do so by reducing U.S.
emissions of greenhouse gases.
At the request of Senators Bingaman and Specter, the EPA
has analyzed the effectiveness these bills as measured by the net impact
each will have ameliorating the rise of global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)
concentrations (and thus global climate change) by the end of this century.
What they found was certainly not encouraging, at least for anyone who thinks
that the U.S. alone can have any impact on global climate via new regulation of
emissions.
The three bills whose impact the EPA assessed were:
1. Lieberman-McCain, ÒClimate Stewardship and Innovation Act,Ó
(S.280),
2. Kerry-Snowe, ÒGlobal Warming Reduction Act,Ó (S.485),
3. Bingaman-Specter, ÒLow Carbon Economy Act,Ó (S.1766).
All three require massive cut-backs in U.S greenhouse gas emissions—an
impossible task with existing technology (assuming that is, that the current
resistance to nuclear power is not swiftly overcome or that we wish to remain a
first world country):
¥ Bingaman-Specter (S. 1766) calls for reducing covered emissions
to 60% below 2006 levels in 2050,
¥ Lieberman-McCain (S. 280) calls for reducing covered emissions
to 60% below 1990 levels in 2050,
¥ Kerry-Snowe (S. 485) calls for reducing covered emissions to at
least 65% below 1990 levels in 2050.
EPA found that while the three bills differed somewhat in the
timing, degree, and scope of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions that they
seek to implement, they all produce about the same impact on end-of-the-century
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations—a direct measure of their
success. And, that the impact is exceedingly small, ranging from a reduction
atmospheric CO2 levels of 23 to 25 ppm from where they would otherwise be under
the reference emissions scenario employed by the EPA (see Figure 1, solid
curves).
Figure 1. The projected future course of atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations under various emissions scenarios used by the EPA. The
solid red curve shows the EPAÕs reference case resulting in 719 ppm by 2100.
The solid curves beneath it represent the projected concentration pathway
produced by the three climate bills, which result in concentrations of between
693 and 695 by 2100. (source: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/s1766analysispart1.pdf)
The EPA finds that the climate bills will lower the projected
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from 719 ppm in 2100 down to either
696 ppm for bills S.1776 and S.280 or 694ppm for S.485. The U.S. contribution
to the global CO2 concentration reduction remains the same with or without
international actions (that are not in any way tied into the bills themselves).
The EPA stopped short of telling us what we all really want to
know—which is how much the U.S. emissions reductions will help slow down
global warming.
So, weÕll step up and run the numbers ourselves.
WeÕll use as our basis the landmark study by National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) scientist Dr. T.M.L. Wigley that was published in
1998 to assess the impacts of the CO2 emissions reductions mandated by the
Kyoto Protocol on global average temperature. For those of you unfamiliar with
WigleyÕs results, he found that if the entire world (including the United
States) fully met their emissions reduction obligations laid out in the Kyoto
Protocol (which, by the looks of things, few if any countries will actually
achieve) that the amount of future global warming that would be ÒsavedÓ would
amount to about 0.07¼C by the year 2050 and 0.15¼C by 2100. (We define ÒsavedÓ
in this context as the difference in projected temperature increase from the
reference scenario to the policy scenario). How much of a CO2 reduction
produced the whopping 0.15¼C temperature savings by 2100? About 40ppm. ThatÕs
right, Wigley calculated that a complete adherence to the Kyoto Protocol by
every country involved including the United States would result in ~40 ppm less
CO2 than otherwise was projected to be there in 2100 and that this decrease
would result in a global average temperature rise that was 15 one-hundredths of
a degree Celsius less than projected to otherwise occur—a reduction which
was scientifically meaningless and bordering on the limits of detectability.
And the three Senate climate bills would do even less!
Recall that EPA calculates that the climate bills will reduce
future atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 23 to 25 ppm. That is about 60% of the
reduction calculated by Wigley for his global Kyoto scenario. Since the
temperature savings scales roughly with the CO2 concentration savings
(especially at these small quantities), the climate bills ÒsaveÓ about 60% of
0.15¼C or just less than one tenth, thatÕs 0.1, degrees Celsius.
One tenth of one degree Celsius for an enormous economic
hit—the EPA
calculated that S.280 (Lieberman-McCain) would lower the U.S. GDP annually
by 1.1% to 3.2% ($457 billion to $1,332 billion) by the year 2050. EPAÕs
analysis of the economic effects of the other bills has not been completed yet
(see here
for updates).
ThatÕs a lot of lost capital to produce virtually no climate
impact. No polar bears are saved, no droughts averted, no hurricanes tamed.
Nada. Except, a lot less cash in the pocketbook.
When it comes down to it, these facts will make this a hard sell
to the American populace at large.
References:
Wigley, T.M.L., 1998. The Kyoto Protocol: Co2, CH4, and climate
implications. Geophysical Research Letters, 25, 2285-2288.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. EPA Analysis of
Bingaman-Specter Request on Global CO2 Concentrations Part I, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/s1766analysispart1.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. EPA Analysis of The
Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/s280fullbrief.pdf