Jump to main content.

OLS : Record

RECORD NUMBER: 3 OF 8

Main Title Climate change {electronic resource} : costs and benefits S.2191 /
Author Yacobucci, Brent.
Publisher Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress,
Place Published {Washington, D.C.} :
Year Published 2008
Report Number RL34489
OCLC Number 228415268
Subject Added Ent Greenhouse gas mitigation--Law and legislation--United States; Climatic changes--Government policy--United States; Carbon sequestration--Law and legislation--United States; Environmental policy--United States
Internet Access
Description Access URL
http://opencrs.com/document/RL34489
Holdings
Library   Call Number Additional Info Location Date Modified
EJBM POD Internet only Headquarters Library/Washington,DC 05/23/2008
Collation {79} p. : digital, PDF file.
Notes "May 15, 2008." Title taken from title screen (viewed May 20, 2008). Includes bibliographical references.
Contents Notes This report examines six studies that project the costs of S. 2191 to 2030 or 2050. It is difficult (and some would consider it unwise) to project costs up to the year 2030, much less beyond. The already tenuous assumption that current regulatory standards will remain constant becomes more unrealistic, and other unforeseen events (such as technological breakthroughs) loom as critical issues which cannot be modeled. Longterm cost projections are at best speculative, and should be viewed with attentive skepticism. Despite models' inability to predict the future, cases examined here do provide insights on the costs and benefits of S. 2191. First, if enacted, the ultimate cost of S. 2191 would be determined by the response of the economy to the technological challenges presented by the bill. The bill provides numerous incentives for technology innovation. The potential for new technology to reduce the costs of S. 2191 is not fully analyzed by any of the cases, nor can it be. Technology development is not sufficiently understood at the current time for models to replicate with confidence. Likewise, it is difficult to determine if available incentives are directed in an optimal manner. The cases do suggest that S. 2191's Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) bonus allowances would encourage deployment of CCS, accelerating development by 5-10 years. Second, a considerable amount of low-carbon generating capacity will have to be built under S. 2191 in order to meet the reduction requirement. How much capacity will be necessary depends on new and replacement capacity needs, along with consumer demand response to rising prices and incentives contained in S. 2191. Third, offsets could be a valuable tool not only to potentially reduce costs, but also to buy time to permit further development of new, more efficient technologies. Cost could be lowered further by greater availability of offsets and international credits and with a broader definition of eligible international credits. Fourth, the Carbon Market Efficiency Board could have an important effect on the cost of S. 2191 through its power to extend the availability of offsets and international credits. In this sense, the Board's powers could mesh with the previous insight about the potential effect of offsets on the bill's overall costs. Fifth, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard could significantly raise fuel prices and limit supply. The effects will depend on what fuels are included, the emissions reductions achieved by alternatives, and the ability to produce those alternatives. Finally, S. 2191's climate-related benefit is best considered in a global context and the desire to engage the developing world in the reduction effort. The United States and other developed countries agreed both to reduce their own emissions to help stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and to take the lead in reducing GHGs when they ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This context raises two issues for S. 2191: (1) whether S. 2191's GHG reduction program would be considered sufficiently credible by developing countries so that schemes for including them in future international agreements become more likely, and (2) whether S. 2191's reductions meet U.S. commitments to stabilization under the UNFCCC.
Access Notes Mode of access: World Wide Web. System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Author Added Ent
Parker, Larry
Corporate Au Added Ent Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.
PUB Date Free Form 2008.
Series Title Traced CRS report for Congress ; RL34489
BIB Level m
OCLC Time Stamp 20080520131713
Cataloging Source OCLC/T
Language eng
Origin OCLC
Type CAT
OCLC Rec Leader 04709nam 2200361Ia 45020


Local Navigation


Jump to main content.