I attended my first side event hosted by IETA (International Emissions Trading Association) this afternoon where U.S. congressional staffers discussed updates to the legislation and progress of the climate change bills (Waxmann-Markey, Boxer-Kerry) circulating in Congress. The Kerry-Boxer bill, which is a revision to the Waxmen-Markey bill that passed through the House, actually calls for higher reductions in CO2 equivalent emissions; 20% by 2020 as opposed to Waxman-Markey which called for 17% by 2020, but for the most part is still very similar to the Waxman-Markey bill. The Kerry-Boxer bill will more than likely evolve into the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill in the near future.

In order to mitigate the risk that senators from states whose economies are based on industries that will be more heavily hit by a climate bill will vote no to pass it, Laura Haynes who was representing Senator Carper of Delaware, stated that their office, among others, is working with senators from these states so that they can weigh in on the design of the future climate bill. These states are predominantly concerned with the targets for emissions reductions and that more incentives for carbon reductions strategies such as CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) are included in the bill. The Senate, a place where any bill needs the support of a much thinner majority, will have a much harder time passing any climate legislation that does not meet the needs states with heavy manufacturing and mining bases.

Although everyone agreed that the climate bill needs to be voted on by June of next year, Chris Miller, from the Senate Majority Leader’s office, explained that the other pressing issues, with which Americans are currently more concerned, are the health care bill, financial reform and a jobs package. Another topic he explained was of utmost importance in moving the climate bill forward is to address the reluctance that the general public has about implementing a carbon market as a mechanism to reduce greenhouse gases and specifically, the rumor that it may create another a sub prime mortgage crisis.

When asked about their thoughts on the outcome of negotiations at the COP 15 on a future climate bill in the U.S., all panelists said that an agreement needs to be made to demonstrate to the Senate that the rest of the world is serious and ready for the U.S. to come on board and take charge in reducing its emissions as one of the worlds’ largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions.

If you are paying attention to any of the scientific data on climate change, the numbers 350 (and you have to be here in Copenhagen to hear the chants of THREE – FIVE – O), and 1.5 deg centrigrade mean something. (We can not exceed 350 parts per mllion of CO2 by many scientists’ assessment to avert absolute disaster and that means no more increase in global mean temperatures than 1.5 *c) That also means peak emissions globally to top by 2015 and then start dropping very quickly. But what it means in real terms is that the magnitude of the emissions reduction before us from where we are today is a reduction of half of half and half again, and all by 2050! Can we do it as a global community?

And, how do we feel when people remind us (North Americans) of carbon debt. We in the US are not reponsible for the most historic carbon debt (we leave that to the Brits for getting us started into the industrial revolution that brought us the very modern, comfortable lives we enjoy today). But we are very close behind them and our per capita carbon emissions are the highest in the world. Just what do we think should be our responsibility.