April, 21 2009, 11:04am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Lisa Nurnberger, 202-331-6959, Aaron Huertas, 202-331-5458
US Can Dramatically Cut Carbon Emissions and Lower Energy Bills at the Same Time, New Study Finds
WASHINGTON
The
United States can dramatically cut global warming emissions and reduce
consumer and business energy bills at the same time, according to the
findings of a soon-to-be-released, two-year study by the Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS).
The
analysis, "Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy
Economy," found that implementing a suite of climate, energy and
transportation policies would allow the United States to meet an
emissions-reduction cap of 56 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and
save consumers and businesses $465 billion in that year. The average
U.S. household would enjoy a net savings of $900 on its energy bills,
including $580 on transportation (fuel, vehicle and driving) costs and
$320 on electricity, natural gas and heating oil, after investing in
home efficiency improvements. Businesses collectively would realize net
energy bill savings of $130 billion.
UCS's
policy recommendations would put the nation on a path to reduce
heat-trapping emissions by at least 80 percent below 2005 levels by
2050, the target that UCS experts contend is necessary to prevent the
worst effects of climate change.
"We
have a historic opportunity to reinvent our economy, tackle global
warming, and cut energy costs," said UCS President Kevin Knobloch.
"Setting a limit on heat-trapping emissions would ensure that we make
the necessary carbon emission reductions to help avoid the worst
consequences of climate change. Combining a carbon cap with strong
efficiency, renewable electricity, and transportation standards can
deliver those emission cuts and save Americans a substantial amount of
money."
------------------------------
Note:
UCS President Kevin Knobloch will testify tomorrow afternoon on the UCS
report findings before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. To
watch the hearing live, go to the committee's Web site. Knobloch's written testimony highlighting key findings of "Climate 2030" and information on energy cost savings by region is available online. The final report will be available in May.
------------------------------
Consumers
and businesses would not have to wait 20 years to see benefits from
UCS's recommended initiatives. The analysis found that by 2020 the
United States could meet a cap of 26 percent below 2005 levels and save
consumers and businesses $346 billion in that year.
Most
of the net energy bill savings over the next two decades would be due
to more energy efficient buildings and industrial processes; cleaner
cars; and a more efficient transportation system. A nationwide limit on
carbon emissions would slightly increase energy prices, UCS found, but
a comprehensive set of energy and transportation policies would dampen
energy demand, lowering energy costs to more than offset efficiency
investments and the higher cost of energy.
The
UCS analysis, which used a modified version of the Department of
Energy's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), concluded that the
United States could reduce energy demand by a third through improved
efficiency in buildings, industry and transportation systems. More than
half of the emissions reductions, meanwhile, would come from cuts in
the electric generation sector. By 2030, the analysis found, power
plant carbon emissions could be 84 percent lower than 2005 levels.
"Efficiency
and renewable energy technologies are ready today to power our economy
with carbon-free electricity," said Steve Clemmer, research director of
UCS's Clean Energy Program. "Our blueprint shows that these clean
energy sources can lead the way in cutting U.S. emissions, while
lowering electricity bills and curbing our addiction to dirty,
high-carbon coal power."
Over
the next 20 years, renewable electricity and efficiency would be more
cost-effective solutions to climate change than advanced nuclear power
and advanced coal plants with carbon capture and storage systems,
according to the report. However, advanced nuclear and coal
technologies could play a more significant role if their costs decline
more quickly than expected, or if the nation does not pursue the energy
efficiency and renewable energy policies recommended by the report.
Transportation
sector emissions also could be significantly reduced. By 2030, car and
light truck carbon emissions could be 40 percent lower than 2005
levels. The combination of cleaner cars and a more efficient
transportation system would cost about $35 billion in 2030, but would
save drivers some $120 billion at the pump -- in addition to savings
generated by the fuel economy standards Congress passed in December
2007. Putting technology to work in freight trucks, meanwhile, would
produce net savings of about $38 billion in 2030 and keep their carbon
emissions steady at 2005 levels.
"Vehicle
carbon standards, low-carbon fuels, and a smarter transportation system
would cut carbon emissions and the cost of owning a car or a truck,"
said David Friedman, research director at UCS's Clean Vehicles Program.
"The future of the environment -- and the future of the auto industry
-- are at stake, and we can help save both by investing in smart-growth
initiatives and cleaner cars and fuels."
------------------------------
Note:
UCS Clean Vehicles Program Research Director David Friedman will
testify on Friday before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. To watch the hearing live,
go to the committee's Web site. A copy of Friedman's written testimony will be available online Friday morning.
------------------------------
If
policymakers enacted UCS's recommendations, in 2030 the transportation,
residential and industrial sectors would use 6 million barrels a day
less than what they consumed in 2005 -- the equivalent of what the United States currently imports daily from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
The
report's recommended approach is similar to one in a draft discussion
climate bill recently proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and
Edward Markey (D-Mass.). Their bill features many of the same policies
found in the report, including a cap-and-trade program, a renewable
electricity standard, energy efficiency standards, and low-carbon fuel
standards.
"To
reap the greatest savings, it is critical that Congress enacts a
comprehensive set of climate and energy policies, such as those
proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill, without delay," said Rachel
Cleetus, a climate economist at UCS. "We are encouraged that the
proposed bill includes a cap-and-trade program, but the other
initiatives in it are equally important. If you dropped the energy and
transportation policies from our recommendations, for example, the
cumulative savings for consumers and businesses over the next two
decades would fall from $1.6 trillion to $600 billion."
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular