350 Seattle has just
sent in its recommendations for Washington state climate policy to Governor Jay
Inslee and his climate policy task force.
Cascadia Planet offers these recommendations as a model not only for Washington, but also
as a set of four principles to guide climate policy design in general – P.M.
From 350 Seattle to
Governor Jay Inslee and the Carbon Emissions Reduction Taskforce: Our thanks
and our recommendations
Dear Governor Inslee
and Task Force Members:
350 Seattle is a
grassroots organization working for climate justice by educating people and
engaging them in the movement for a livable planet. We applaud your commitment
to designing an effective climate and carbon policy for Washington State. We are grateful for actions that move
Washington State off fossil fuels and towards a highly efficient economy run on
clean energy sources.
As you know, the impacts of carbon pollution on our state are
already severe, from record wildfires to shellfish industry distress. Like you, we recognize the urgency of
reducing carbon pollution as quickly as possible. Though Washington represents only a small portion
of global emissions, it is incumbent upon us to act where we can and set an
example for other states, our nation, and our world. Your climate policy design work is extremely
important.
In the spirit of joining to ensure a climate legacy for our
children and coming generations, we offer the following recommendations:
Regardless of the type
of carbon-pricing system, ensure that it is strong enough to make a difference
quickly.
Examples of
ways to do this include:
● Limiting the role of carbon offsets. The governor
has recommended that emitters be able to cover no more than 10% of their carbon
reduction requirements with offsets. We
agree that it is important to limit offsets, to provide the greatest possible
incentives for direct emissions reductions.
For this reason we urge that the target be set lower. California limits offsets to 8%, and the
Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) limits offsets to 3.3%.
We believe Washington State should set a limit closer to RGGI and suggest that
no more than 4% of obligations be covered by offsets.
● Including language about enforcement,
and making sure there are adequate resources for enforcement. Unfortunately, we all know that
some emitters may try to slip by without cutting their emissions as required.
However, if all emitters know that their actions will be monitored, they will
respond, and in fact will probably look for innovative ways to cut emissions.
● Putting a price on a high share of
emissions from the start. We recognize that it can make a big difference to businesses if they have
a ramping-up period to help them adapt to carbon pricing. At the same time,
ramping down emissions is urgently demanded by our current situation. If a
cap-and-trade system is chosen, we believe the initial level of auctioned
permits should be well over the 15% suggested by the governor. Similarly, if a
carbon-tax system is chosen, the system should cover most types of emissions
sources right from the start, and not offer exemptions for significant sectors
of fossil fuel energy use.
Consider ways to
accelerate Washington carbon reductions, in line with climate science.
Climate
science pioneer James Hansen and his team have calculated the carbon reduction
trajectory needed to return the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentrations to
350 parts per million (ppm) by 2100; this is the level at which planetary
energy balance is restored and the planet stops accumulating solar heat (it is
also the reason for our organization’s name). It is therefore essential to
reach this goal. That requires emissions
reductions on the order of 6% annually plus significant increases in biological
carbon storage. The Hansen study is available at this
site:
Washington’s
current non-binding targets, set in 2008 legislation, are a return to 1990
emissions levels by 2020, a 25% reduction by 2035, and 50% by 2050. For
Washington to achieve carbon reductions in line with global targets set by
Hansen et al, our goals need to be
approximately a 30% reduction by 2020,
70% by 2035, and 90% by 2050. We recognize the tremendous challenges involved
in meeting those targets globally, let alone by a single state. Nonetheless, we ask the Governor to consider
ways to accelerate carbon reductions beyond the 2008 targets, particularly in
early years when deep emissions cuts are most crucial.
The Governor
has instructed the CERT to design policy around the 2008 targets. In line with
the Governor’s order to Department of Ecology to “review the state’s greenhouse
gas emission limits and recommend updates” we urge the Governor to consider
proposing higher binding targets to the legislature. Another option would make
the current targets binding, but set stretch goals to be achieved by
complementary policies and investment of carbon revenues in specific emissions
reductions strategies. In any event,
climate legislation and rulemaking processes should be crafted to allow for
tighter carbon caps in response to emerging science and the understanding of
carbon reduction opportunities.
It is
abundantly clear from the science that
not taking strong early action may lead to climate tipping points and changes
with centuries-long impacts. We should all recall the collapse of the summer
Arctic icepack in 2007, decades ahead of projections. Our planet is capable of
delivering dangerous surprises, so we must act on the side of caution. We need
to take bold action sooner rather than later.
As much as possible, use carbon revenues for investments in carbon
reduction.
We recognize
that carbon pricing will increase energy costs; to instill a sense of fairness
and increase public support, we need to reduce the impact on
low-to-middle-income people by rebating a portion of carbon revenues. Apart
from this, carbon revenues should be invested as much as possible in
carbon-reducing activities. We believe
that the following investments have greatest potential to reduce carbon
emissions.
●
Low-cost
financing for building energy retrofits that fully capture efficiency
opportunities.
●
Elimination
of all coal- and gas-generated electricity used in Washington, replaced with
renewable energy and improved energy efficiency.
●
Increased
incentives for rapid transition to electrified transportation in all sectors
where feasible, including light-duty vehicles and railroads.
●
Reduction
of the need to drive by upgrading transit and other options to the automobile,
and building affordable housing close to job centers.
Reduce atmospheric CO2
levels by investing in biocarbon.
Most
projects to build up biological carbon storage for climate goals have been in
the offsetting framework. But these projects only neutralize a current carbon emission. Achieving
climate stability requires reduction of pre-existing atmospheric carbon
concentrations, already at 400 ppm. Though technological modes are being
developed to soak CO2 from the atmosphere, plant photosynthesis is currently
the only economically feasible way to do this. Hansen’s team estimates that 100
billion tons of atmospheric carbon must be absorbed and stored as biocarbon this century to reach
the target of 350 ppm by 2100.
Washington
State has magnificent natural assets that can store large amounts of biocarbon,
including our forests, farms, and wetlands. We need to invest carbon revenues
in carbon-mitigating land use management. Here are some examples of possible
high-value biocarbon investments:
● Extending harvest rotations on
Department of Natural Resources forest lands
● Purchasing private forest lands to
add to state working forests and reserves
● Buying conservation easements on
private forest lands
● Providing incentives for farmers to
shift to soil-building practices such as no-till cultivation
● Supporting the capacity of Washington
State University and conservation districts to provide technical assistance for
implementing soil-building practices
● Providing additional funding for
wetlands restoration.
These
measures can also provide the additional benefit of building resilience in the
face of climate impacts. Healthy forest stands retain moisture, thus working
against drought stress, as well as floods and slides caused by heavy
rainfall. Soil rich in organic carbon
reduces crop losses by retaining moisture, improving fertility, and building
resistance to pests and disease. Wetlands buffer against storm surges and
floods.
Washington
State is a climate leader. By setting a high bar for carbon reduction goals,
limiting offsets, and investing in actions to reduce carbon emissions and
atmospheric carbon concentrations, we can set the pace for other states and the
nation as a whole.
350 Seattle
asks you to consider our recommendations as you design climate policy and
legislative proposals. We are leaving our children with a terrible legacy.
Please do absolutely all you can to give them a fighting chance by designing
and proposing the strongest possible climate and carbon policy for Washington
State. Leadership on this issue is the best
legacy you can possibly leave.
Where can I find the information on the 90% reduction recommended by Hansen? Thanks
ReplyDeleteThe basis is Hansen's calculation of a need for 6% annual reductions, which works out to ~90%. See previous blog post -http://cascadiaplanet.blogspot.com/2014_07_01_archive.html
ReplyDeletePerfect Replica Watches UK, combining elegant style and cutting-edge technology, a variety of styles of Perfect Replica Cellini Watches UK, the pointer walks between your exclusive taste style.
ReplyDelete