{
  "id": "RL32953",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32953",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 306373,
      "date": "2005-07-18",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:38:17.609029",
      "title": "Climate Change: Comparison and Analysis of S. 1151 and the Draft \"Climate and Economy Insurance Act of 2005\"",
      "summary": "Climate change is generally viewed as a global issue, but proposed responses generally require\naction\nat the national level. In 1992, the United States ratified the United Nations\u2019 Framework\nConvention\non Climate Change (UNFCCC) which called on industrialized countries to take the lead in reducing\ngreenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Over the past decade, a variety of voluntary and\nregulatory actions have been proposed or undertaken in the United States, but carbon dioxide\nemissions have continued to increase.\n \n Several proposals designed to address greenhouse gases have been introduced in the 109th\nCongress. Two proposals,  S. 1151 , introduced by Senators McCain and Lieberman, and\na draft alternative, announced by Senator Bingaman, received increased scrutiny in preparation for\nthe Senate\u2019s debate on comprehensive energy legislation. During that debate, S.  1151,\nintroduced as  S.Amdt. 826 , was defeated on a 38-60 vote. In contrast, the draft\nalternative remains a work-in-progress and has yet to be introduced. This report compares these two\nproposals.\n \n Both proposals would establish market-based systems to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. \nHowever, the proposals differ in how those systems would work.  S. 1151  would\nestablish an absolute cap on emissions from covered entities, and would allow entities to trade\nemissions under that cap. The draft amendment would limit emissions intensity (greenhouse gas\nemissions per unit of GDP), and establish a cost-limiting safety valve to protect against high\ncompliance costs. Each would set up a tradeable permit program to begin addressing emissions by\nthe year 2010. \n \n In 2004, the Energy Information Administration analyzed an earlier version of  S. 1151 . Under EIA\u2019s analysis, S.  1151 would achieve a 6.7% reduction in overall\ngreenhouse gas emissions in 2010 compared with its projected business-as-usual scenario, but would\nnot return emissions to their 2000 or 1990 levels. This contrasts with the CRS estimate that the\ndraft amendment would reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions 2.5% in 2010 compared with\nEIA\u2019s\nbusiness-as-usual scenario.\n \n The two proposals represent different answers to the price-versus-quantity issue in reducing\ngreenhouse gases. In general, market-based mechanisms to reduce CO2 emissions focus on\nspecifying either the acceptable emissions level (quantity) or compliance costs (price) and allowing\nthe marketplace to determine the economically efficient solution for the other variable. If one is more\nconcerned about the possible economic cost (price) of the program, then use of a safety valve to limit\ncosts could appear to some more appropriate, even through it introduces some uncertainty about the\namount of reduction achieved (quantity). In contrast, if one is more concerned about achieving a\nspecific emission reduction level (quantity), with costs handled efficiently, but not capped, a\ntradeable permit program without a safety valve may be viewed as more appropriate. In the case of\nthese alternatives,  S. 1151  leans toward the quantity (total emissions) side of the\nequation; the draft amendment leans more toward the price side. This report will be updated as\nevents warrant.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32953",
          "sha1": "abc02c4e244923f4a1b05ad577bf01e1f8684743",
          "filename": "files/20050718_RL32953_abc02c4e244923f4a1b05ad577bf01e1f8684743.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32953",
          "sha1": "c586edb1cfb5423804133a09d1b034c5cae2ce40",
          "filename": "files/20050718_RL32953_c586edb1cfb5423804133a09d1b034c5cae2ce40.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc819740/",
      "id": "RL32953_2005Jun20",
      "date": "2005-06-20",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Climate Change: Comparison and Analysis of S. 1151 and the Draft \u201cClimate and Economy Insurance Act of 2005\u201d",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20050620_RL32953_a1d8c082fd33ebddbea8a50286ef5b7764f5e20f.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20050620_RL32953_a1d8c082fd33ebddbea8a50286ef5b7764f5e20f.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Energy Policy"
  ]
}