U.S. Government
International
Academic, Non-Governmental
The UK has sought to position itself as a world leader in fighting climate change with a commitment to push emissions 34% below 1990 levels by 2020, a legally binding goal that's among the world's most ambitious targets. Last week, it unveiled a roadmap for making that happen.
In a July 15 white paper, the Department of Energy and Climate Change rolled out a raft of policies making up the UK's Low Carbon Transition Plan — an economy-wide strategy aiming to slash emissions and help the UK meet its five-year carbon budgets, goals it set in last year's Climate Change Act.
So how does the newest plan from across the pond stack up to the U.S. climate legislation currently before Congress?
Two National Low-Carbon Strategies
In the UK, the power and heavy industry sectors, which account for a full 50% of emissions, have been subject to carbon caps under the EU Emission Trading System since 2005. But up to now, no umbrella policy has explained how the UK will reduce emissions and increase efficiency in non-traded sectors that together generate the other half of UK emissions: transportation, homes, workplaces and agriculture.
The new low-carbon transition plan closes the gap, extending low-carbon policies to cover the entire scope of the UK economy.
That includes a stronger push for home energy efficiency and small-scale renewable power production; tighter vehicle emission standards and investments in developing low-carbon cars; and support for sustainable agricultural practices.
Likewise, the major U.S. energy and climate bill — the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which just passed by the House and is now awaiting action in the Senate — seeks to provide a comprehensive framework for jump-starting the U.S. transition to a clean energy economy. It too shoots for energy efficiency in homes, buildings, transportation and agriculture.
The differences between the two are often stark, though, starting with the very goals they’re seeking to achieve: ACES aims to cut emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 — a far less demanding baseline and target than the UK's 34% below 1990 levels.
Improving the energy efficiency of buildings is a key element of both plans. In the UK, building codes will contribute to emissions cuts under a regulation requiring that homes built after 2015 meet a standard of zero net emissions. Similar provisions in ACES set a target for buildings to use 30% less energy, working up to 50% less by 2015.
In the transportation sector, the UK pledges government support for green vehicles, and it mandates that cars sold in the UK after 2020 emit 40% less carbon dioxide per kilometer than cars did in 2007. ACES complements Obama's tough new fuel economy standards — fleets must average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, cutting emissions 30% — by laying preliminary groundwork for more transportation efficiency, through investments in plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) production and support for electric vehicle infrastructure.
Agriculture provisions are sparse in both plans, since the sector is responsible for only about 6-7% of emissions in each nation.
While the UK plan sets no hard mandates for farmers, the government will encourage them to undertake voluntary efforts for reducing emissions through more efficient use of fertilizer, better management of livestock and manure, and reduced energy use. In ACES, few provisions address emissions reductions from farming and land use, except with regard to funding for emissions-reducing agricultural practices financed by domestic offsets under the ACES cap and trade program.
Low-Carbon Power Generation
Small trailers in the United
Small trailers in the United States are sufficient problem of environmental & traffic pollution. In Britain, they are less than is US. I think this is a big problem and it should be resolved at the legislative level.
The British government takes control from its energy regulator
Useful article. I don't think it stresses enough the importance of the British government's executive branch taking some control from its energy regulator. The US equivalent would be the EPA regulating, as it legally can, carbon over the heads of 50 state regulators--what is being called the nuclear option.
The Watered Down US Effort
The difference between the two targets show just how weak the US really is in terms of getting serious about pollution reduction. It's a token effort, and even at that level it is having extreme difficulty passing into law. By the time it gets to be law, I'd be surprised if the ACES legislation is aiming for any changes at all. No, it will be just a bunch of exceptions explaining why it'll be business as usual.
Support for cap-and-trade is evaporating.
Thanks for the informative article. But it appears to me that cap-and-trade will not pass into law. Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation. Whereas when the House passed the bill it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap and trade, opinion now seems to be at least 6-to-1 against. With public opinion so clearly against cap-and-trade, it likely will be buried by the Senate.
If instead of the complex and possibly ineffective cap-and-trade the United States had a national mandate to replace coal generation plants with natural gas and nuclear energy, plus if we replaced our commuter cars with battery-powered electric cars, we would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions faster and beyond the proposed cap and trade targets.
-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com
Post new comment