I’m catching up a bit on re-posting some blogs.
Back in November, President Obama and China’s President Xi Jinping announced an important agreement on carbon emissions. At the time, I wrote about the importance of the agreement, but laid out the math on how the US target is not aggressive enough to match what science is telling us (and not as fast as what leading companies are committing to). The blog began…

The U.S. and China, the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, have announced new sizable targets for reductions in emissions. President Obama is committing the U.S. to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels, while Chinese President Xi Jinping announced China’s first cap on emissions by 2030. These are impressive improvements from what came before, and there are many reasons to celebrate. But unfortunately, a little basic math shows they may be too little, too late.
If we want to increase our odds of holding warming to the globally agreed-upon limit of 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 Fahrenheit) – a goal that many scientists begrudgingly accept as the most that was politically feasible, but not necessarily enough to avoid some serious environmental challenges – there is only so much carbon the world can still emit.

(See the rest).
More recently, the Obama Administration revealed and submitted the plan more formally to the UN as part of the global negotiations leading to Paris meetings later this year. As promised, the President committed the U.S. to a 26 to 28% cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2025.
As my previous blog described, we need a cut of more like 40% to match the latest science. And a recent analysis from my colleagues at PwC shows graphically the shortfall of the US and EU targets. But that said, nobody in business should think the plan is weak or that it won’t have broad impacts across the economy. The administration is using the power of the EPA, the courts, executive orders, and government purchasing power to continue or expand a range of initiatives.
There will continue to be pressure on power plant emissions; new emissions and efficiency standards for equipment, vehicles, and buildings; and initiatives to address non-CO2 gases like methane (cows) and HFCs (refrigerants).
The other announcement that came out recently was an aggressive plan to cut the government’s own emissions, not by 28% cut, but by 40%. So they do understand the science. Unfortunately, the country-level target must be more about what seemed feasible politically or wouldn’t upset energy interests too much, not about what’s necessary.
But it’s a real plan and should help the world drive toward a global agreement in Paris later this year. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.
(Andrew’s new book, The Big Pivot, was named a Best Business Book of the Year by Strategy+Business Magazine! Get your copy here. See also Andrew’s TED talk on The Big Pivot. Sign up for Andrew Winston’s blog, via RSS feed, or by email. Follow Andrew on Twitter @AndrewWinston)