Conclusion and Endnotes

Climate-friendly Energy Policy: Options for the Near Term

Conclusions

A “climate-friendly” energy policy can advance climate objectives while serving energy policy goals. However, a climate-friendly energy policy is not a substitute for climate policy. More significant GHG emissions reductions would be necessary in order to address climate change than can be justified solely on the basis of traditional energy policy objectives. In the long run, we can only curb climate change by weaning ourselves of our reliance on fossil fuels. The energy policy options outlined in this brief represent sensible and important first steps in U.S. efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

Back to Main Brief Page [1]

 

 

Endnotes 

1 CO₂ from fossil fuel combustion represents 82% of U.S. GHG emissions. Only 2% of U.S. GHG emissions are CO₂ released from other activities. Although most methane emissions (the second-largest GHG emissions source) come from landfills and agricultural sources, about one-third are attributable to production of natural gas or coal, or to transportation of natural gas. See U.S. DOE, EIA. 2003. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2001. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ggrpt [2] .
Return to Brief [3]

2 Smith, Douglas W., Robert R. Nordhaus, Thomas C. Roberts, Marc Chupka, Shelley Fidler, Janet Anderson, Kyle Danish, and Richard Agnew. Designing a Climate-friendly Energy Policy: Options for the Near Term. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA. July 2002.
Return to Brief [4]

3 The U.S. Domestic Response to Climate Change: Key Elements of a Prospective Program. In Brief, Number 1. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA.
Return to Brief [5]

4 Nordhaus, Robert R. and Kyle W. Danish. Designing a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for the U.S. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA. May 2003. This report identifies issues that must be addressed in the design of a mandatory U.S. GHG reduction program. Three options are specifically evaluated: (1) cap-and-trade programs, (2) GHG taxes, and (3) a “sectoral hybrid” program that combines efficiency standards for automobiles and consumer products with a cap-and-trade program applicable to large sources of greenhouse gases.
Return to Brief [6]

5 Greene, David L. and Andreas Schafer. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Transportation. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA. May 2003.
Return to Brief [7]

6 CO₂ makes up the lion’s share of U.S. GHG emissions, but other gases also play a role in enhancing the greenhouse effect. Non-CO₂ greenhouse gases account for roughly 18% of the global warming potential of U.S. GHG emissions. Some of them have a very weak effect; options to control GHG emissions have focused on the five with the strongest impact. Methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) are created through decomposition, chemical processes, fossil fuel production and combustion, and many smaller sources. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) is used as an insulating gas in large-scale electrical equipment. The remaining two are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) used as refrigerants and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) released during aluminum smelting and used in the manufacture of semiconductors. When compared using 100-year global warming potentials, their weighted emissions are as follows: CH₄, 9%;  N₂O, 5%; HFC/PFC/SF₆, 2%. For further discussion of non-CO₂ greenhouse gases, see Reilly, John M., Henry D. Jacoby, and Ronald G. Prinn. Multi-gas Contributors to Global Climate Change. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA. February 2003.
Return to Brief [8]

7 CO₂ emissions from the combustion of biomass are offset by CO₂ removed from the atmosphere by the plants.
Return to Brief [9]

8 Crude oil in the SPR plus private company stocks would cover approximately 150 days without imports.
Return to Brief [10]

9 For more information about deregulation in the electric power sector, see U.S. DOE, EIA. Electric Power Industry Restructuring Fact Sheet. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/fact_sheets/restructuring.html [11].  
Return to Brief [12]

10 U.S. DOE, EIA. 2002. Annual Energy Review 2001. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/contents.html [13].
Return to Brief [14]

11 U.S. DOE, EIA. 2003. Annual Energy Outlook 2003, p. 83. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo [15] . This number reflects net imports.
Return to Brief [16]

12Ibid., Tables A2 and A3.
Return to Brief [17]

13 “Primary energy” consists of the sum of “site energy” (the energy directly consumed by end users) and the energy consumed in the production and delivery of energy products to end users. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/cbecs/cbecs_trends/primary_site.html [18].
Return to Brief [19]

14 U.S. DOE, EIA. 2002. Annual Energy Review 2001, Table 1.3.
Return to Brief [20]

15 U.S. DOE, EIA. 2003. Annual Energy Outlook 2003, pp. 5-6.
Return to Brief [21]

16 U.S. DOE, EIA. 2002. Annual Energy Review 2001, Tables 1.3 and 8.2a.
Return to Brief [22]

17 U.S. DOE, EIA. 2003. Annual Energy Outlook 2003, p. 6.
Return to Brief [23]

18 In addition to CO₂ emissions, energy production and use contributes two other greenhouse gases: CH₄, primarily from natural gas systems and coal mining, and N₂O from fuel combustion.
Return to Brief [24]

19 See Endnote 1.
Return to Brief [25]

20 See U.S. DOE, EIA. 2003. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2001, p. 26.
Return to Brief [26]

21Ibid.
Return to Brief [27]

22Ibid., pp. 24 and 21 (respectively).
Return to Brief [28]

23 A rulemaking by the Department of Transportation, in progress at time of writing, calls for the light truck standard to be raised to 22.2 mpg by 2008.
Return to Brief [29]

24 Greene and Schafer.
Return to Brief [30]

25 National Research Council. 2002. Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Available at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309076013/html/ [31].
Return to Brief [32]

Download PDF [33]