Global Warming Solutions Reports

Search • RSS Feed

Executive Summary

Global warming has the potential to disrupt New England’s environment and way of life. Coastal flooding, smoggier summers, the loss of reliable ski seasons, threats to the region’s vibrant fall foliage displays, and a host of other impacts could result if global warming pollution worldwide continues to increase.
Recognizing the danger, in 2001 the New England governors and Eastern Canadian premiers adopted a landmark commitment to reduce the region’s emissions of global warming pollution to 1990 levels by 2010 and to 10 percent below 1990
levels by 2020.

An analysis of global warming emission data for 2005, the most recent year available, holds both good news and bad news
for the region.

The bad news is that New England is not on track to meet the targets for global warming pollution reductions set by the
New England governors in 2001.

Emissions were 8 million metric tons (carbon dioxide equivalent) greater in 2005 than they were in 2001. (See Figure ES-1.)
Indeed, New England is significantly farther away from achieving the governors’ goal than it was when the commitment was
originally made.

Since the Climate Change Action Plan was signed in 2001, global warming emissions have increased in most sectors of New England’s economy.

• Transportation emissions increased by 7 percent between 2001 and 2005, accounting for the largest share of the increase. This change primarily reflects greater use of gasoline to fuel cars and
light trucks, increased use of diesel fuel for heavy-duty trucks, and expanded consumption of jet fuel.

• Emissions from electricity generation increased by 8 percent. Increased electricity generation at natural gas and coalburning
power plants, partially driven by increased per-capita electricity consumption, resulted in higher emissions.

• Emissions from fossil fuel consumption in residential and commercial buildings also increased. New England experienced a colder winter in 2005 than in 2001, largely accounting for the increase in emissions. Emissions from the region’s industrial sector, meanwhile, have decreased since 2001, as a result of a sharp drop off in natural gas consumption likely caused by higher natural gas prices and industry shrinkage. The good news for New England is that global warming pollution fell slightly from 2004 to 2005—the first year-to-year decrease since 2001—and
that several indicators suggest that the decrease in emissions continued and accelerated in 2006.

• Global warming emissions in New England dropped by 0.3 percent from 2004 to 2005. (See Figure ES-1.) A reduction
in emissions from oil consumption in the residential, commercial and transportation sectors was the leading reason for the
decline. Oil prices increased sharply during 2005, and demand for home heating oil was down slightly due to the warmer winter, both of which may have triggered the decline in oil use.

• Global warming emissions are likely to have declined at an even faster ratefrom 2005 to 2006. Fossil fuel consumption declined in many sectors of the New England economy during this period.
Carbon dioxide emissions from power plants—New England’s second-largest source of global warming pollution—declined
by 11 percent from 2005 to 2006. Sales of gasoline, diesel fuel and home heating oil also declined. High energy prices—coupled with energy efficiency efforts in some states—may have been
responsible. Emissions of global warming pollution increased in five of the six New England states from 2001 to 2005.

• Connecticut saw emissions increase by 4 percent between 2001 and 2005. An increase in emissions from home heating
oil and transportation were the leading reasons for the increase.

• Maine experienced a 2 percent increase in emissions between 2001 and 2005. Maine was also the only New England
state to achieve falling global warming emissions in both 2004 and 2005. Emissions in the electricity sector dropped by
a third between 2001 and 2005, due to reduced production of electricity from oil and natural gas fired power plants. Emissions
from transportation, however, grew significantly.

• Massachusetts emissions increased by 2 percent between 2001 and 2005, with the transportation and electricity sectors driving the increase. Electricity consumption grew faster in Massachusetts than in any other state at 9 percent over the period.

• New Hampshire posted the greatest increase in emissions between 2001 and 2005, with emissions rising by 26 percent.
The increase was largely due to a significant increase in electricity generation in the state, with two of New Hampshire’s
three largest power plants having come on line since 2001. These plants serve the broader New England electric grid.

• Rhode Island was the only state to experience a drop in emissions between 2001 and 2005, with emissions falling by 7
percent. The bulk of the drop, however, was due to reductions in power production—reductions that were countered by increases in production at other power plants in the region. Notably, however, emissions from the state’s transportation
sector decreased by 7 percent during a period when transportation emissions were on the rise region-wide.

• Vermont experienced a 1.2 percent increase in emissions between 2001 and 2005. The biggest contributor to Vermont’s increase in emissions since 2001 is the transportation sector, which saw emissions increase by 0.16 MMTCO2E.

• Emissions declined in four of the six states from 2004 to 2005, although shifts in power production among the states—all of which feed New England’s common electric grid—are responsible
for a large share of the year-to-year variation in state emissions.

Falling Behind
• Energy consumption data for 2006 suggest that most New England states reduced their emissions compared to 2005. Massachusetts, for example, produced fewer emissions from electricity production and lowered its consumption of gasoline, highway diesel fuel, home heating oil, and natural gas. New England has made progress in adopting policies to reduce global
warming pollution, but more remains to be done to reduce the threat of global warming.

To fulfill its commitment, New England must reduce emissions 10 percent below 2005 levels by 2010 and 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The progress the region likely achieved in 2006 is a good start. However, further action will be required to ensure that New England achieves the level of emission reductions necessary to prevent the worst effects of global warming. The New England states should:

• Adopt mandatory, enforceable caps on global warming pollution from all sectors of the economy. The level of the emission cap should be set based on the reductions science says are necessary to prevent the worst impacts of global warming, which mirror the New England governor’s agreement.

• Enforce and, where possible, strengthen transit systems and clean energy policies and programs already adopted
by the states, such as:

• The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which caps emissionsfrom electric power plants. RGGI’semission reduction target—10 percent below projected 2009 levels by 2019—is inadequate and should be strengthened.

• The Clean Cars program, which has been adopted by every New England state other than New Hampshire.

• Energy efficiency efforts, including product standards and building efficiency codes, which can save New Englanders’ money on their energy bills while reducing emissions.

• Renewable electricity standards and other efforts to promote renewable energy.

• Consumer-funded home and business heating efficiency programs designed to reduce heating oil and natural gas use.

• Build a more sustainable transportation
system for the region that would reduce
emissions by:

• Investing in the region’s rail infrastructure and developing a long-term rail plan.

• Improving transit in suburbs and smaller cities.

• Encouraging downtown redevelopment in a sustainable, pedestrian friendly way.

• Supporting transit-oriented, compact residential and commercial development.

• Reallocating the costs of driving, such as pay-as-you-drive insurance and elimination of parking subsidies.

• Considering global warming pollution in transportation planning and development projects.