Note: the most recent version of this chart is available at Comparison of Legislative Climate Change Targets in the 110th Congress.
By John Larsen
Note: this article is an update to Global Warming Legislation in the 109th Congress.
This graph shows how different legislative proposals would cap U.S. emissions (a variation of this graph recently appeared in a New York Times article). For comparison, the Bush administration policy—an emissions intensity target—is also shown, as is the U.S. commitment under the Kyoto Protocol had it not withdrawn. The graph also shows a “business as usual” scenario, absent any policy changes, using projections from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration. The blue area shows the estimated range of U.S. emissions reductions that would be needed to stabilize global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations between 450 and 550ppm (parts per million) CO2 equivalent.
PDF Version of This Document
Major Changes From Proposals in the 109th Congress
- The Bingaman target starts in 2012 (as opposed to 2010) and now extends to 2050 (as opposed to 2030). The data here extrapolates the target to 2050. The Bingaman intensity targets are more stringent than those included in the previous proposal.
- The McCain-Lieberman target extends to 2050 (as opposed to 2020) in incremental steps.
- Like McCain-Lieberman, the House companion bill sponsored by Congressmen Olver and Gilchrest now contains targets that extend to 2050 (as opposed to 2020).
- The target in the Kerry-Snowe bill target is now slightly more stringent than its predecessor, requiring emissions to reach 1990 levels in 2020 (as opposed to 2022) with slightly more stringent subsequent annual targets also.
John Larsen, Senior AssociateJohn Larsen is an expert on federal climate and energy policy, currently on detail at the U.S. Department of Energy.





