Boxer bill update: Probably no U.S. CO2 emissions cut until after 2025.

arch.jpgI made a mistake about the Boxer substitute for the Lieberman-Warner bill. Every year, it allows into the market enough offsets to cover 30% of the total quantity of emissions allowances. I had said it was 15% (here), which was a loophole the size of the Gateway Arch. How big a loophole is 30% offsets? Wait and see.

I had said the three offsets — domestic, international, and international forestry — could make up 15% of allowances because the WRI summary (here) says that “The combination of all three of these mechanisms is limited to 15 percent of total emissions allowances” and because when I read the actual bill (here, page 23), that’s what it seemed to say. But in fact we read it wrong. My apologies! What does this all mean?

It means we have now doubled the number of offsets, which wouldinvolve substantial issuance of credits that do not represent real emissions reductions,” according to a recent analysis by Stanford.

Now when I redo the math, it seems the most likely outcome of this bill is that U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions in 2025 would we about the same as they are now, and possibly higher. If that’s the best we can do for a piece of legislation that’s deader than a dead parrot — it is a dead parrot whose body has been given to a veterinary anatomy class for dissection and had its heart removed — why bother?


nebula.jpgIn 2025, there are 4392 million metric tons of CO2 (MMTCO2) of allowances. That is a hefty 27% reduction from the current level, which is about 6000 MMTCO2. It is an even bigger reduction (33%) from projected levels. Or it would be if the various cost-containment strategies didn’t provide a loophole the size of the Ring Nebula. [Note: That is the biggest loop I can think of that comes with a nice picture — I am open to other suggestions.]

A full 30% of the allowances in 2025 can be covered by offsets, which is a stunning 1318 MMTCO2 of allowances.

Given this wimpy bill, let’s assume a wimpy President sets the cost-containment minimum price in 2012 at the lowest possible price, $22/ton. That puts the auction price at $41/ton (inflation-adjusted dollars) in 2025, barely above the European price of CO2 today! No doubt the cost-containment auction will sell out. That is some 395 tons borrowed from the far future

That means, effectively, the “cap” in 2020 is really 4392 + 1318 + 395 = 6105 MMTCO2 — higher than current emissions but lower than projected emissions.

That does assume there is no short-term borrowing, which could be another 659 MMTCO2, which means “allowed” emissions in 2025 would be above BAU. But that is, as I noted earlier, a very unlikely worst-case scenario.

In the real world, I would expect B-L-W as currently constructed to lead to neither its projected reductions by 2025 nor to BAU growth. From now through 2011, emissions would probably keep rising on their recent slow trajectory (because of high energy prices and perhaps lower than normal growth), taking us to maybe 6150 MMTCO2 in 2011, at which time the cap sets in, and I would expect U.S. emissions to stop growing for a few years as entities began to adopt the very cheapest emissions reduction measures while canceling plans for the most expensive new carbon-intensive projects. Then, toward the end of the next decade, we’d probably start to see a slow decline — especially as some of the clean energy investments kick in. That should return us to around current levels by 2025. Still, I can’t see why we’d start to see really deep reductions until the late 2020s, when existing coal plants might start getting shut down and/or replaced with coal with carbon capture and storage.

FORESTRY: Some people have tried to lobby me on the benefit of the international forestry offsets, saying the provisions are very strong. Wonderful. I say let’s combine some of the regular auction money with that from other industrialized countries and stop deforestation in key countries. But let’s not allow existing coal plants — or, worse, new coal plants — to keep emitting for decades by coughing up a few bucks every year.

3 Responses to Boxer bill update: Probably no U.S. CO2 emissions cut until after 2025.

  1. Ronald says:

    Not relevant to this article, but I saw this it the Times.

  2. Andy Bauer says:


    Your analysis reminds me of the ‘Sooty Six’ power plant clean up in Connecticut (1998-2002), where the rule was every ton of Sulfur Dioxide emitted had to be offset by not one but four tons worth of allowances (aka ‘allowance trading’). It was touted as a compromise solution offering plant owners flexibility.

    It sounded reasonable, and with state allowances amounting to only one third of the required total, it looked as if real clean up was finally at hand. Reps and Senators on both sides of the isle got snookered into promoting it.

    Here’s the rub: in a not-much-advertised loophole (aren’t they all?) plants could trade not just in CT but throughout the northeast region, which each year made available twice the number of allowances for all the plants combined! Clean up would occur only if plant owners had a change of heart (so… never).

    Back to the B-L-W bill, how naïve is it to ask if this is an oversite?

  3. alex says:

    Joe, do you have any analysis to support the claim that offsets are doubled in the substitute? As you said, the bill and the WRI summary appear to state otherwise. What’s the basis for the new interpretation?