Ambition and Opportunity in America’s New Climate Commitments

On April 22, the Biden-Harris Administration announced America’s new greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments in the context of the Paris Agreement. The new U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) sets a goal of reducing emissions by 50-52 percent based on a 2005 baseline by 2030. The new NDC signals a return to U.S. leadership on climate change that will need to be matched with federal policies and programs that transition the United States to a resilient and equitable clean energy economy.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to view this briefing on everything you need to know about the new NDC. Experts discussed the new emissions reduction goal, why it matters, and how it can be used as a guide for domestic federal policy development and design. The briefing also explained how the U.S. NDC fits into the overall architecture of international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase resilience to climate impacts.

 

HIGHLIGHTS

Tracy Bach, Co-Focal Point, Research and Independent NGOs, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; Visiting Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis

• The United States rejoining the Paris Agreement in January 2021 and convening the Leaders Summit on Climate in April were key first steps in U.S. reengagement internationally and domestically on climate change.
• Given that 85 percent of carbon emissions come from outside U.S. borders, domestic action on climate change goes hand-in-hand with international climate leadership.
• Since 1992, 190+ countries have been working multilaterally under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where strategies are devised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate change impacts, and where countries share means of implementation such as finance, sharing technology, and building capacity in developing nations.
• The Kyoto Protocol, developed under the UNFCCC framework, imposed quantified carbon emission reduction targets on developed countries.
• Under the Paris Agreement, all countries take on mitigation and adaptation responsibilities under a pledge called a nationally determined contribution (NDC) to keep the global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius (preferably 1.5°C).
• NDCs form the backbone of the Paris Agreement’s ambition cycle, and under the Agreement, countries are required to submit these NDCs once every five years.
• Countries are required to report on the progress they have made regarding their NDCs. To push countries to increase their climate mitigation ambition, a global stocktake takes place every five years, which examines the collective progress of countries relative to achieving the 1.5 °C target.
• The new 2021 U.S. NDC is more ambitious than its 2016 counterpart, as it aims for a 50-52 percent reduction in emissions from a 2005 baseline level by 2030 [up from 26-28 percent by 2025]. While the United States has announced a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, the country has not submitted an official statement to the UNFCCC regarding its net-zero emissions target.
• One of the challenges of NDCs overall is that they are nationally determined, meaning countries build their policies from the ground up upon existing laws, instead of using a top-down approach that stems from an international agreement.
• Whether or not the United States is doing enough in regards to climate change mitigation, particularly compared to other nations, is a reemerging question that can be measured by comparing emission reductions of multiple countries normalized by baseline years [see graph in slide 6 of Bach's presentation].
• The United States has doubled its commitment to climate financing overall by 2024, compared to the second term of the Obama Administration's climate finance commitments. The Biden administration has stated that, within this doubling, the United States will triple its climate adaptation financing.
• Regarding adaptation activities, there is increased support for environmental justice and climate resilience, including a million-dollar climate adaptation grant program funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support underserved and vulnerable communities in Canada, Mexico, and the United States in preparing for climate-related impacts. Additionally, the United States is partnering with island states on resilience projects and investing in projects in Arctic communities to mitigate the health effects of black carbon.
• It is important to keep track of small multilateral and bilateral initiatives that are contained within the NDC so that the United States can activate more climate mitigation ambition within its partnerships and activities.
  • For example, the U.S. India Climate and Clean Energy Agenda is a partnership designed to support U.S.-India climate collaboration, which originated before the Paris Agreement, and focuses on the achievement of India’s electrification initiatives and goal of generating 450 GW of energy from renewable sources by 2030.
  • The Net-Zero Producers Forum encourages the energy administrators of nations producing fossil fuel-based energy to collaborate while increasing clean energy production and diversifying energy profiles using pragmatic strategies such as methane abatement.
• Developing countries such as India and China are projected to grow their carbon emissions output, primarily through electricity production, due to the growth of their economic sectors. But developing countries argue that they are not historically responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, as they were not involved in earlier industrial developments, and thus should not be held to the same climate mitigation timeline as the United States and European Union nations.
• Globally, newly-revised NDCs have led to a narrowing of the emissions gap by around 12-14 percent [the emissions gap is the "difference between where greenhouse emissions are predicted to be in 2030 and where they should be to avoid the worst impacts of climate change"—U.N. Environment Programme]. Overall, the reintegration of the United States into the Paris Agreement has increased momentum on the global stage, highlighting the importance of maintaining the international “ambition cycle” for climate mitigation measures.
• As more countries reach their 2030 emission targets, it will then be easier to offer and fulfill newer, more ambitious mitigation measures and targets.
• The public announcement of upcoming NDCs through meetings like the G7 Summit [in June], G20 Summit [in October], and COP26 [November U.N. climate conference], will increase public awareness of climate mitigation—there is incredible potential for these meetings.
• What should Congress be doing? Congress should focus its attention on pandemic recovery and infrastructure legislation that contains green components. Though the current emissions reduction goal of 50-52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 is good, experts suggest that a target of 57-63 percent below 2005 levels would be ideal.

Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director, Climate and Energy Program, Union of Concerned Scientists

• At the core of the Paris Agreement is the understanding that climate change and climate impacts are already unfolding around the world, and are having tremendous effects on the everyday lives of people both within the United States and internationally.
• The latest science provides very sobering messages and emphasizes the importance of taking immediate action, as highlighted by the increased number of multi-billion-dollar weather and climate disasters occurring within the United States during 2020, including a record-breaking fire and hurricane season, as well as increased flooding and heatwaves.
• The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5ºC stated for the first time that the world must reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and that the world must cut carbon emissions by 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030.
• A global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius itself brings a great number of grave global impacts, and every fraction of a degree above that brings increased risks to human health, human livelihood, ecosystems, and profound changes to the planet that future generations will be forced to reckon with.
• The 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment highlighted significant shifts in temperature and precipitation that indicate that climate change is already impacting the United States and that global failure to mitigate emissions will significantly worsen the impacts of climate change.
• The EPA has just recently released an update of climate change information on its website, contrasting with the absence of this information under the previous administration, highlighting that the new political era is a reason for hope and optimism.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s recent update of the U.S. Climate Normals shows increasing baseline temperatures and rates of precipitation across the United States, indicating that the “new normal” is extremely abnormal.
• The 2021 Initial NDC Synthesis Report published by the UNFCCC highlights a recent increase in global emissions and is a “red alert for the planet,” as it demonstrates just how off-track the global community is in regards to mitigation.
• The delivery of a letter signed by over 1,500 scientists and experts on April 14, 2021, catalyzed a multi-sector engagement with the Biden-Harris Administration, defined by a call to take immediate climate action through a bold NDC commitment.
• The new U.S. NDC was the centerpiece of the 2021 Earth Day Leaders Summit on Climate. The Summit also emphasized the United States’ renewed commitment to contribute to international climate finance. The new administration is taking a whole-of-government approach to how it addresses climate.
• The United States’ renewed climate contribution includes a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of at least 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The United States should also commit to contributing at least $8 billion in international climate finance over the next 4 years, implementing a national climate adaptation strategy, and being accountable for the loss and damage experienced by developing nations [Loss and damage are harms caused by climate impacts that are unavoidable even with adaptation action].
• Recent studies highlight that deep 2030 emissions cuts are feasible. The process of achieving 2030 emission reductions must include systemic, just, and equitable changes, in addition to technological advancements.
• Delivering the domestic climate agenda is centered around ensuring that benefits to Americans are tangible and recognizable. Green jobs, infrastructure investments, investments in minority communities, a fair transition for coal workers, economic recovery, climate risk disclosure, and the responsibility of fossil fuel companies must all be incorporated into the domestic climate agenda.
• While we cannot pick the crises, we can pick the solutions. America is facing a moment of tremendous risk, but also a moment of clarity, in that the need for climate mitigation is extremely clear.

Q&A Session

Is the U.S. NDC enough? What sorts of policies need to be implemented in the United States during the 117th Congress to make it enough? What is the role of other actors—private sector, NGOs, etc.?

• Cleetus: The NDC goal is a 2030 goal, and the important thing to keep in mind is that we are in 2021 now; this is about more than one administration or Congress. I prefer to see this as a glass-half-full moment where we have a good, robust NDC commitment, and now we need to build the policies to deliver on it. These policies will deliver benefits right here in the United States. The reason to do them is because it is in our self-interest to deliver on them. I think a big infrastructure plan that has broad bipartisan buy-in is our most important near-term opportunity to start laying the foundation. Making sure this infrastructure foundation includes clean energy and climate resilience, and that it delivers for all, can unlock more and more as we go forward. Using an example from the power sector, we do have to get to 100 percent clean power by 2035, but the pathway to get there requires building transmission, distributed generation, and microgrids as well as creating models of community ownership. If we start to lay these foundations now, we will see tremendous cost declines in these technologies. I encourage people to recognize that we have the solutions at our fingertips. The challenge has always been political will and getting the policies enacted in Congress. The other thing we need to keep in mind is that sometimes we get stuck in a frame of mind where we think politics are just a given. Remember that we cannot negotiate with the impacts of climate change, and it is the science that we need to be guided by. Politics are a human construct and we as human beings need to understand the risks that are piling up, and that we have the solutions, so let’s act.

• Bach: Yes, we are on track because we met the 2009 goal made back at Copenhagen, and we are on track to meet the 2025 goal, which was based on policies and initiatives from the Obama administration and what was built on at the state level. You had California passing the Global Warming Solutions Act over 15 years ago, which started doing a lot of greenhouse gas mitigation work that then serves as a model for study and scaling up. I do agree that the problem is, as we approach such a high level of action, there are entrenched forces that are going to resist change. If you look at young voters, that is the demographic that all polling says focuses on climate change, because this is the generation that will live with some of the impacts. I think politically, this is a ripe moment. You also have the business sector that has been feeling the impacts over the past 10 years. They have seen the numbers and they know it works. I think change is coming from all angles, so I am optimistic, as Rachel is.

Conversations usually center around carbon emissions. But there are also significant opportunities to reduce other greenhouse gas emissions—like methane and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons). How is this addressed in the new U.S. NDC? What additional efforts are needed at the federal level to reduce non-carbon greenhouse gas emissions? In international negotiations, what is the status of current conversations on this topic?

• Bach: Carbon dioxide gets all the attention, and there is good reason for it, but methane has received plenty of attention as well. Usually, the way it is accounted for in NDCs is through carbon dioxide equivalents. The various gases are compared using the metric of global warming potential. Rules and executive actions addressing methane are certainly talked about in the NDC press release from the White House. There is relatively low-hanging fruit there regarding emission reduction potential.

• Cleetus: The U.S. NDC is expressed in terms of net greenhouse gas emission reductions so the target of 50-52 percent is meant to be all-inclusive. One piece of analysis that was released ahead of the NDC announcement from the Environmental Defense Fund was around the contribution of methane reductions, which showed that you can get up to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 very cost-effectively. And it is interesting because a lot of the industry agrees with that, that this endless venting of methane is wasting a resource, and it is very cost-effective to stop these leaks. It will create jobs to upgrade our pipelines, and there are many opportunities to plug leaks, from the wellhead to deliveries. HFCs have been negotiated under a separate track—the Kigali Amendment, which is an amendment to the Montreal Protocol. It is an amendment that is supported by U.S. businesses because they have developed substitutes for HFCs and want to sell them around the world. In the Energy Act of 2020, Congress instituted HFC provisions in line with the Kigali Amendment goals in a bipartisan manner. There is a lot of bipartisan support for renewable energy around the country, so we can get some things done. We just need to get out of this polarized frame of view of why we are doing climate work. We are not doing it because somebody far away is telling us it is important; we are doing it because climate impacts are showing up in our backyards.

What are the opportunities under the UNFCCC to advance climate adaptation work and how do they mesh with opportunities and work that needs to be done in the United States at the federal level?

• Cleetus: Although the NDC itself does not require delivering on an adaptation strategy, the United Kingdom did put forth a national adaptation strategy alongside its NDC, and we are urging the United States to do this as well. The reality is that our nation still does not have a coherent, cohesive national strategy for adaptation. Instead, what we have is a piecemeal approach, and we are dealing with these climate challenges as if they are one-off disasters. Thinking about adaptation is imperative because we have already locked in these climate impacts. As we are talking about infrastructure investments, there is a lot of emphasis on clean energy and infrastructure that is built to last. That is how we keep communities safer and ensure that taxpayer money is being well spent. This is also deeply connected to equity because those that have the least will be bearing the brunt of these impacts. It is a shame for a country as rich as the United States to not have a more comprehensive strategy. We need to do better, and there is now a whole-of-government approach that is saying that climate will be taken into account. We need to see more from the administration in terms of concrete actions.

• Bach: There have been a fair number of studies about how Americans respond better to climate adaptation as opposed to mitigation. It is very visceral and up close, and you can feel and see the changes. There has been a fair amount of development at the county and state level using federal funding that has been passed down. I would like to make sure there is only more of that, and that we do not lose that in the federalization process, because it has been the way to convince many voters that climate change is real. The studies show that through adaptation, people will eventually embrace the need for mitigation.

In some instances, adaptation is not possible. This is now a routine conversation at international climate negotiations, and it is discussed under the framing of loss and damage. What should our audience know about loss and damage—what are the tough questions at hand? Is loss and damage an issue mostly for other countries or is it something we should also be thinking about in a domestic U.S. context?

• Bach: Internationally, loss and damage discussions have grown out of adaptation arguments, which came out of the mitigation approach. There were years of international negotiations during which adaptation was not mentioned because it was feared that countries would not mitigate as much. Loss and damage is what you cannot adapt to, it is an ending point. For example, when land is lost to sea level rise or when changing ice conditions permanently impact a way of life in an Arctic community. There are challenging questions that arise. When a landmass goes underwater, you lose sovereignty. What does that mean in terms of not only your cultural identity but also your political identity? What we know is that climate migration is one byproduct of loss and damage—when people can no longer sustain themselves and their families in one place, they move. Currently, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage under the UNFCCC has a set work plan and has shifted to focusing on climate migration. One thing that is very ripe on the loss and damage agenda for COP26 is a separate financing mechanism for loss and damage. That is a very active issue that developing countries are keeping on the agenda.

• Cleetus: There are physical and human limits to our ability to adapt to climate change, and we have already locked in some of those extreme impacts in some places of the world. We might not want to talk about loss and damage, but it is happening, and real people are on the other side of it. The human suffering part is the responsibility of richer nations that are historically responsible for the vast amount of carbon emissions. I would urge us not to be thinking from a posture of guilt, but just to recognize the science and the facts. There are things we can do now to ensure we are not increasing that level of suffering and misery in the future.

The topic of international climate finance has been woven throughout our conversation. What is your takeaway message for our audience on U.S. re-engagement with international climate finance?

• Cleetus: The most expensive thing is inaction. We can help safeguard a future in a way where we can prosper. These are investments well-worth making when you look at the alternatives, and we can do it as a nation. If we can do it to confront the COVID-19 crisis, we can do it to help confront this climate crisis too.

• Bach: Enlightened self-interest. The money is well-spent, and it is being spent already. We are already looking at making more U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) dollars climate-specific. That is a very concrete action. Congress should increase the USAID budget if they could, but you can also repurpose pre-existing funds within the budget. Second, Biden’s plan in and around the NDC already has several initiatives to “green” other aspects of international aid that are going out, with goals for specific percentages, and an overseer who will examine all the proposals and make them more green. Third, we cannot forget that the international community's climate finance goal should be much higher than the current one of $100 billion/year that came out of Copenhagen in 2009. But the point is to mobilize that financing, including private investments. What I would ask Congress to consider is that the government dollars are catalyzing the private dollars. With well-placed public funding, you can get even more private investment to follow. That is the current model being explored at the international level.

Highlights compiled by Jaxon Tolbert