An 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020

Virtually all countries have ratified the Kyoto protocol. Yet, carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are rising even faster than the worst-case estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Almost a year ago, a study pointed out that actual data showed that artic ice was already retreating faster than the IPCC's worst-case scenario. How could this happen, if developed countries had pledged to reduce 116 million metric tons of carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol?

Firstly, the United States, the world's largest CO₂ emitter, has until now refused to ratify Kyoto. Also, some emissions were underestimated by the IPCC. Data for shipping were badly covered. Importantly, China did not have to make reductions under Kyoto. According to several reports, China in 2006 actually overtook the US as largest emitter, and a new analysis now puts the annual increase in CO₂ emissions for China to at least 11% for the period between 2004 and 2010, far more than the IPCC estimates that the region that includes China would see only a 2.5% to 5% annual increase in CO₂ emissions for this period. According to this recent analysis, there will be an increase by 2010 of 600 million metric tons of carbon emissions in China over the country's levels in 2000, which adds more than five times as much as the reductions pledged under Kyoto.

Kyoto will end in 2012 and needs to be followed up by an agreement that will result in dramatic reductions in emissions. Negotiations focus on what targets countries should commit to, to what extent it should be left up to each place to decide how to reach those targets and what should happen if countries fail to meet their targets. Many believe that a renewed global commitment to reduce emissions should be backed up by trade sanctions against countries that fail to cooperate.

While such negotiations take place, why not take the lead by setting out to make dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions? That could be done by implementing a framework of feebates, including a 10% fee on gasoline cars that funds local rebates on zero emission vehicles, and a 10% fee on fossil fuel that funds local facilities that produce electricity in clean and safe ways.

As the Environmental Protection Agency's inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005 shows, well over 80% of US emissions are caused by fossil fuel - the mining of fossil fuel and burning it in power plants and in transportation. So, if we switched to electric vehicles over a period of a dozen years and to electricity produced in clean and safe ways, such as with wind and solar power, this would achieve an 80% cut by 2020.

Will such a shift drive up prices for consumers? Clean and safe ways to produce electricity are already price-competitive, while cost of fossil fuel keeps rising. Sure, not everyone may decide to switch to an electric car, even if the economies of scale resulting from such policies will - over the timespan of 12 years - make electric cars far cheaper than gasoline cars. But cuts could also be made in agriculture, waste handling and industrial activities such as in the production of concrete, iron and steel. Additional feebates could result in cement that causes far less CO₂ emissions, while waste could be turned into hydrogen and agrichar. I have further proposed a 10% fee on meat, funding vegan-organic meals to be served in restaurants in communities without roads. Of course, each area should decide on such details and monitor and adjust things, say, on an annual basis. Once such a framework of feebates is put in place, market mechanisms can further sort out what works best in each respective area.

So, how much will this cost? Since feebates are budget neutral, little or no government money would be needed to implement this. Government doesn't need to pay subsidies to make this work. In fact, it would help a lot if government stopped the subsidies and the support that it now gives to the oil, coal and car industries. Livestock and feed for livestock are also subsidized with huge amounts of tax money.

There will be little or no cost, in fact we will be far better off financially. Reducing our dependence on oil imports will improve our financial position. Many people will benefit from the creation of numerous jobs in clean and safe ways to produce electricity and in making the electric grid smarter. It could revitalize our car industry. Healthwise, huge improvements could be achieved with such cuts in emissions. Moreover, the alternative would be to continue paying for the rising cost of importing and transporting fuel, and for the cost of mining and dealing with waste, as well as paying the cost to offset and mitigate the damage inflicted on the enviroment.

Given the obvious benefits, we don't need to await the outcome of post-Kyoto negotiations, but we should start implementing such a framework now. If the rest of the world followed our lead, we wouldn't have to send troops to the Middle East to secure the supply of oil, we wouldn't need to patrol the world to avoid nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists, etc. We can lead the world and - for once - we can help the world, not by giving money to other countries or by sending troops, but by helping ourselves and by setting the example in the process.

Related articles:
Shipping emissions grossly underestimated - by Sam Carana
Tariffs on imports from polluting countries? - by Sam Carana
Agrichar - by Sam Carana
Tax the sale of meat - by Sam Carana
Communities without roads- by Sam Carana
Beyond Kyoto - by Sam Carana
The Distributed Grid - by Sam Carana
Reinventing the Wheel - by Sam Carana