Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

Recapturing U.S.

Leadership on Climate

Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

March 2021

To meet the scale of the climate crisis

and recapture its role as a global

climate leader,

the United States should put forward a

new ambitious and credible NDC with a target of reducing total net

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at least 50% below 2005 levels by

2030, charting an emissions path consistent with Paris Agreement

temperature targets. This goal is within reach with a whole-of-

government effort encompassing robust administrative action and

new legislation in Congress, including investments in low-carbon

technologies and infrastructure as well as policies that ensure

reductions in emissions.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Importance of Renewed U.S. Leadership

The Urgent Need for International Action

The Imperative to Ratchet Up Ambition

Raising the Bar for Ambition

Setting a new NDC Consistent with a Path to Net Zero

A Fair and Ambitious NDC to Enable Greater Climate Ambition Abroad

Reaping the Benefits for American Economic Prosperity, Health, and Equity

Regaining Credibility with Action

Reducing Emissions at Least 50% by 2030 is Achievable

A Whole-of-Government Approach is Needed

A Limit and a Price Would Accelerate Progress and Ensure We Hit Our Climate Goals

Conclusion

Appendix A—Analysis Methodology and Assumptions

Appendix B—Status of NDCs and Net Zero Goals by Country

Appendix C—Economy-Wide Methane Target Analytics & Assumptions

Table of Contents

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

Climate change is a global challenge that demands a

global solution. After four years of federal inaction and

backtracking on climate, proactive reengagement by

the United States in international climate diplomacy

will be critical to advancing global efforts to meet the

Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature

rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius (2°C). President

Biden’s move to reenter the United States into the Paris

Agreement on the first day of his administration was

crucial—but was only the first step.

When it was adopted with the help of U.S. leadership

in 2015, the Paris Agreement signaled a new frontier in

the global fight against climate change, in which all of

the world’s countries committed to contribute in line

with their national capabilities. In advance of Paris,

the United States put forward a nationally determined

contribution (NDC) with a target of reducing total net

U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 26-28% below

2005 levels by 2025. Then, in June 2017, less than six

months after taking office, former President Trump

announced his intention to withdraw the United States

from the Paris Agreement, deeply damaging America’s

reputation. To regain U.S. credibility on the world

stage, rebuild trust, and demonstrate the seriousness

of the U.S. commitment to addressing climate change,

the Biden administration must put forward a new NDC

for 2030 that is both ambitious and credible, while

taking immediate concrete steps to cut emissions in

line with meeting that goal.

The new NDC must be ambitious enough to meet the

pace and scale of the climate crisis and signal renewed

commitment to meeting global temperature targets.

That means setting a target that will put the United

States on track to achieve net zero GHG emissions no

later than 2050 and slow the rate of warming between

now and then—goals that are consistent with what

the science tells us is necessary globally to avert the

worst impacts of climate change on people and the

environment and one that has been embraced by

the Biden-Harris administration. To be perceived as

ambitious internationally, the new U.S. NDC must also

be commensurate with those of similar economies

such as the United Kingdom (UK) and European

Union (EU), which have committed to net zero GHG

emissions by 2050 and to reducing emissions by 68%

and 55% respectively from 1990 levels by 2030.

At the same time, the new NDC must be credible—

meaning that one or more technically and

economically viable policy pathways can be identified

to achieve it. Credibility is important in order to

promote confidence in the Paris process; pledging a

level of emissions reductions that is clearly out of reach

would undermine the value of the NDC. At the same

time, credibility also requires a willingness to act boldly

and immediately to reduce emissions of multiple

greenhouse gases with special emphasis on carbon

dioxide (CO

) and methane, the two most impactful,

using every tool available, including existing law as

well as new legislation. Credibility also requires that

the NDC be developed in a transparent and inclusive

process—with input from stakeholders across the

United States, including the private sector and civil

society.

To meet the need for ambition and credibility, the

United States should put forward a new NDC with

a target of reducing total net U.S. GHG emissions at

least 50% below 2005 levels by 2030. As a component

of the new NDC, the Administration should include

an explicit commitment to reduce methane emissions

in order to help slow the rate of warming over the

coming couple of decades and limit peak warming.

Given currently available mitigation technologies and

approaches, a target of reducing methane emissions

by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 economy-wide is

reasonable and would be broadly consistent with

the “topline” goal of at least a 50% reduction in GHG

emissions across the economy. Meeting these goals

would put the United States on an emissions path

consistent with achieving international temperature

goals. Including an ambitious methane target will

enable important reductions in near-term warming;

delaying these reductions will result in more rapid

near-term warming and a higher peak warming even

if the overall temperature goals are met. These goals

are within reach with an all-in, whole-of-government

effort including swift action from the administration

and new legislation in Congress to jumpstart the

transformative change needed to bend the emissions

curve down towards net zero GHG emissions no later

than 2050.

Independent analyses from different sources,

using a range of modeling approaches and varied

Executive Summary

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

assumptions, demonstrate the feasibility of reaching

50% GHG reductions by 2030 (see Figure below)—and

there is strong evidence that even greater reductions

are possible. Meeting this target will require the Biden

administration and Congress to deploy all of the tools

available. This includes adopting a suite of robust

climate and clean air protections under existing law

addressing the pollution emitted from the power and

transportation sectors, as well as methane emissions

from oil and gas; directing significant economic

recovery dollars towards accelerated deployment of

clean electricity and electric vehicles and supporting

infrastructure and manufacturing; new legislation that

limits pollution from the power sector, such as a clean

electricity standard; increasing federal investment in

innovation and demonstration of promising emerging

technologies; and supporting state efforts to cut

emissions. Crucially, in order to ensure we meet the

new NDC, President Biden must work with Congress

to enact new legislation that establishes enforceable

declining limits on pollution across the economy.

This will not only serve as a backstop mechanism to

guarantee the United States hits both its near-term and

long-term goals but will also supercharge and align

efforts to cut pollution across all sectors and industries,

moving us more quickly and affordably towards our

net zero goal.

A 2030 NDC which is perceived domestically and

internationally as both ambitious and credible will

restore America’s leadership on a global priority,

extending our nation’s reach and bolstering efforts to

promote other American values abroad. It will also

help revitalize international action on climate change,

galvanizing increased ambition around the world,

including from major emitters like China and India,

where dramatic emissions reductions are necessary to

meet global temperature goals.

The United States has much to gain from charting an

ambitious path on climate over the coming decade.

Well-designed climate policy can offer myriad

benefits for American workers and consumers,

including reducing near-term climate disruptions

and the associated damages while creating millions

of good jobs, avoiding hundreds of thousands of

premature deaths from air pollution, promoting

equity and reducing disparities in access to clean air

and water, and positioning the United States to be a

strong competitor in the growing global clean energy

economy. Importantly, how we get to our new 2030

goal matters—to ensure we capture these benefits,

policymakers must be intentional and thoughtful

about policy design that works for Americans across

the country.

Notes: Figure reports results from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) using the RHG-NEMS model (EDF-NEMS Modeling); the University of Maryland Center for

Global Sustainability using the GCAM-USA model (GCAM Modeling); EDF “bottom-up” analysis of sector-by-sector mitigation opportunities (EDF Sectoral Analysis);

and America’s Pledge using the ATHENA and GCAM-USA models. Emissions data include all GHGs and rely on AR4 100-year global warming potential (GWP) values.

Reductions in 2030 are depicted according to the 2005 baseline used in each respective analysis. The 2005 baseline depicted by the gray dotted line relies on EPA’s GHG

Inventory baseline adjusted upward based on EDF’s analysis of oil and gas methane emissions.

A range of analyses demonstrate that the United States can

cut GHG emissions at least 50% below 2005 level by 2030

NET U.S. GHG EMISSIONS

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

On January 20

, hours after taking office, President

Biden made good on his promise to reenter the Paris

Agreement. The reentry took effect on February

, 2021. The landmark Paris Agreement is a legally

binding international accord on climate change

adopted by 196 countries in Paris on December 12

2015, and subsequently ratified by 190 countries.

The agreement significantly strengthens the global

response to climate change in recognition of the fact

that climate change is a global problem that requires

a global solution. The major objective of the Paris

Agreement is to limit global temperature increase

to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, while

pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to

1.5°C. The Paris Agreement requires each country to

prepare, communicate, and maintain successive NDCs

that it intends to achieve, as well as to report fully and

transparently on its progress toward meeting those

targets. The NDC submitted by the United States in

advance of the Paris Agreement is no longer in effect

due to the formal withdrawal of the United States from

the Paris Agreement in November of 2020. Now that

the Biden administration has rejoined the agreement,

the United States will need to submit a new NDC.

This report makes the case that in order to be both

ambitious and credible, the new NDC the United

States puts forward should include a target of reducing

total net U.S. GHG emissions at least 50% below 2005

levels by 2030. This would signal that the Unites States

is aligned with the science and commitments of our

international allies, help to rebuild our international

credibility, recapture U.S. climate leadership, and

position the country to be a strong competitor in the

21st century global clean energy economy.

The remainder of the introduction speaks to the

importance of renewed U.S. climate leadership on the

world stage, the urgent need for international action

on climate, and the imperative of new commitments

to ratchet up ambition under the Paris Agreement.

The following section argues that the bar for ambition

requires that the new U.S. NDC align with the science,

be commensurate with commitments made by other

advanced economies, and go beyond the straight-line

emissions trajectory to cut more emissions in early

Over the past four years, the world watched the

Trump administration abandon U.S. international

climate commitments, attack the suite of climate and

clean air protections put in place under the Obama

administration, deny foundational climate science,

and ignore the impacts of climate change already

affecting Americans across the country. Not only has

the abdication of U.S. federal leadership—once a

driving force for global climate action and ambition—

damaged America’s reputation on the world stage, it

set back global efforts to confront the climate crisis,

despite progress made by other countries and some

U.S. state and local governments.

years to achieve at least a 50% reduction in emissions

by 2030 on the path to net zero by 2050. The final

section presents a range of analyses demonstrating

that this 2030 target is not only feasible, but that

multiple policy pathways exist for meeting it, while

illustrating that the credibility of the target will depend

on a whole-of-government approach, including

robust action under existing authority as well as new

legislation from Congress.

Introduction

The Importance of Renewed

U.S. Leadership

The countries that have not yet ratified are Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, South Sudan, Turkey, and Yemen. See https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.

aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-d&chapter=27&clang=_en.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

December 2009 U.S. diplomacy at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the UN Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) helps secure the Copenhagen Accord,

marking the first time that major developing countries including China agree to

reduce their own emissions.

December 2011 At COP17 in Durban, South Africa, countries formally decide to develop a new

climate agreement that includes commitments from “all Parties.”

November 2014 The United States and China jointly announce their intended nationally determined

contributions (INDCs) more than a year ahead of the Paris conference. The United

States announces a target of reducing emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025.

March 2015 The U.S. State Department formally submits the INDC to the UNFCCC.

December 2015 The Paris Agreement is adopted in Paris by 196 Countries at COP21.

September 2016 President Obama deposits the United States instrument of acceptance with the

United Nations Secretary General to join the Paris Agreement.

October 2016 With the deposit of the instruments of ratification of the EU countries, the Paris

Agreement threshold of at least 55 countries accounting for at least an estimated

55% of global GHG emissions having deposited their instruments of ratification,

acceptance, approval or accession is met, triggering the conditions for the

agreement to enter into force.

November 2016 The United States presents its ‘Mid Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization’ to

the UNFCCC setting out economy-wide net GHG emissions reductions of 80% or

more below 2005 levels by 2050.

November 2016 The Paris Agreement enters into force.

June 2017 President Trump announces his intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

November 2019 The Trump administration files formal notice of withdrawal from the Paris

Agreement, to take effect one year later. This was the earliest possible date for notice

and effect according to Article 28 of the Paris Agreement.

November 2020 The United States formally withdraws from the Paris Agreement, effectively

annulling the 2025 NDC.

January 2021 President Biden signs an executive order reentering the Paris Agreement.

February 2021 The reentry of the United States to the Paris Agreement takes effect.

Timeline of U.S. Participation in the

Paris Agreement

This was submitted to the UNFCCC as the United States’ Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). The decisions that give effect to the Paris Agreement

make clear that the INDC is considered to be the communicated NDC unless the Party decides otherwise. As a result, the INDC submitted by the United States

effectively became the NDC when the United States deposited their instrument of acceptance.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

In the face of federal inaction on climate, U.S. state

and local governments stepped up. The “We Are

Still In” movement—a joint declaration expressing

support for the Paris Agreement and calling for a

net zero trajectory for the United States—attracted

nearly 4000 businesses, state and local elected

officials, tribal and faith leaders, universities, and

others. These commitments were foundational to

building momentum towards climate progress, but

there remains significant work to do to translate

these commitments into concrete policies that can

cut climate pollution and deliver results at the scale

required to meet our climate goals. Despite the

commitments of subnational actors to achieve state-

level reductions consistent with the Paris Agreement

goals, emissions projections pre-COVID showed that

the United States was far from being on the path

to reaching the original U.S. NDC commitment to

reduce emissions 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025.

If the 25 states with climate commitments had put in

place policies to limit pollution consistent with this

target, the United States would have been a third of the

way closer to hitting the target.

While this illustrates

that states have the potential to deliver meaningful

abatement with binding policies, it also underscores

the imperative for strong federal policy frameworks

alongside ambitious state and corporate action to

deliver the necessary outcomes.

Recapturing U.S. federal leadership in the wake of

the last four years will not be easy, but it is critically

important for leveraging the strong collective global

response to climate needed to meet the goals set

out in the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement

is significant because it requires all of the world’s

countries to have national commitments to combat

climate change, but without the major emitters, the

impact of the agreement is diminished. The United

States, the EU, and China represent over 40% of global

GHG emissions, and the G20 countries collectively

emit more than 80% of global GHG emissions.

When the United States announced its intention to

withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the balance of the

agreement was thrown. With the United States back

in, balance can be restored and the United States can

bring its diplomatic weight to bear to press for global

ambition.

EDF, “Turning Climate Commitments into Results: Progress on State-Led Climate Action”,

https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/FINAL_State%20Emission%20Gap%20Analysis.pdf.

Kate Larsen et al., “Taking Stock 2020: The COVID-19 Edition” (Rhodium Group, July 9, 2020),

https://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Taking-Stock-2020-The-COVID-19-Edition.pdf.

Specifically, net zero is defined as a state where anthropogenic emissions by sources are balanced by anthropogenic removals by sinks. (IPCC, “Global

Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas

Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate

Poverty,” 2018.)

The Urgent Need for International

Action

A 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) shows that, to stabilize our

climate and contain the risk of potentially catastrophic

outcomes, global CO

emissions must decline to net

zero—meaning the world is emitting no more than we

remove from the atmosphere—around midcentury,

along with dramatic reductions of powerful non-CO

GHGs like methane. Further, reducing emissions of

short-lived climate pollutants such as methane rapidly

and soon will reduce the near-term rate of warming—

with major reductions in climate-caused damage

to society and ecosystems. For more on the science

behind these targets, see the textbox on pg. 10.

The stakes for not meeting these targets are

enormously high. Scientists warn that temperature

rise above the 1.5 to 2°C range carries increasing

risks of disastrous outcomes for human wellbeing,

ranging from more frequent and severe risk of extreme

heat, droughts, floods, wildfires, intense hurricanes,

and infectious diseases to sea level rise and the

deterioration of ecosystems that humans depend on

for food, employment, and recreation. Every fraction

of a degree of increased warming leads to greater

likelihood of harm and increases the risk of triggering

dangerous climatic tipping points and catastrophic

outcomes, making it imperative that the United

States and the rest of the global community move

aggressively to limit global temperature rise to the

slowest rate of increase and the lowest total amount of

warming possible.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

The initial set of NDCs put forward in Paris in 2015

put us on a path to a 3°C or greater increase in global

temperatures, woefully shy of even the 2°C goal.

was clear from the outset that much greater emission

reduction efforts would be required. The Paris

Agreement accounted for the need to continually

increase ambition, requiring countries to come

forward with new or updated NDCs every five years.

The second round of NDCs was due in 2020 in advance

of COP26. However, due to the pandemic, the COP was

delayed and is now scheduled to be held in Glasgow in

November of this year.

A growing number of countries have already

committed to net zero or climate neutrality goals and

many have already put forward new or updated NDCs

consistent with a net zero pathway (see Appendix B).

The EU has committed to climate neutrality by 2050

The Imperative to Ratchet Up Ambition

and is in the process of enshrining this commitment

in law. The UK was one of the first countries to enact a

net zero commitment in law and Japan, New Zealand,

Norway, Costa Rica, Switzerland and others have also

established net zero policies or laws as part of their

long-term climate strategies. In September 2020,

China’s President Xi Jinping committed his country to

achieving carbon neutrality by 2060 at the UN General

Assembly.

After the climate inaction that defined the Trump

administration, the United States must move decisively

to overcome our credibility deficit with international

partners. As the world turns toward the next round of

international negotiations, the Biden administration

has an opportunity to rebuild trust and demonstrate

the seriousness of the United States’ climate

commitment.

United Nations Environment Program, “Emissions Gap Report 2020” (Nairobi, 2020), http://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2020.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

Stabilizing the climate below 2°C will require preventing further

build-up of GHG emissions in the atmosphere beyond a certain

point. Given that long-lived climate pollutants—predominantly

and to a lesser extent nitrous oxide—can last for a century

or longer in the atmosphere, we need to drastically reduce their

emissions or balance via negative emissions as soon as possible,

and ultimately achieve net zero emissions, where we are adding no

more than we are simultaneously removing. It is important to note

that greater reductions in emissions of short-lived climate pollutants

than those required to maintain constant radiative warming (e.g., a

40% reduction for methane) would offset some net CO

emissions,

requiring lower levels or even no negative emissions to offset the

hard to eliminate sources of CO

emissions.

For short-lived climate

pollutants that last from weeks to decades – such as methane,

black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)—we do not need

to achieve net zero emissions, but we must reduce their rate of

emissions to a level that maintains a stable impact on the climate. Even greater reductions are highly

desirable since this is a powerful tool in reducing overall warming and equally important in slowing the

rate of near-term warming and the concomitant increases in climate-caused damages to society and the

environment.

In a special report published in 2018, the IPCC analyzed more than 100 emissions scenarios that were

consistent with a 2°C target, and nearly 100 more that were consistent with a 1.5°C target. While several

different pathways can achieve the same outcome, average characteristics of the pathways show net

zero CO

emissions achieved around midcentury for 1.5°C pathways, and around 2070 for 2°C pathways.

For 1.5°C in particular, this corresponds to on average around a 50% reduction in CO

emissions

globally by 2030 (relative to 2010 levels). The overall amount of CO

emitted before net zero is achieved

determines the amount of negative emissions needed afterwards: if we stay within a set “carbon

budget,” fewer negative emissions or fewer reductions in emissions of short-lived climate pollutants are

required. Non-CO

emissions do not reach zero globally for any of these pathways, but are considerably

reduced relative to present-day levels—such as around 40% reduction in methane and black carbon

by midcentury. When the non-CO

scenarios are combined with the CO

scenarios (both positive and

negative emissions for the latter)—which requires a metric such as global warming potential (GWP) to

allow comparisons of the climate impacts of different greenhouse gases—it gives a sense that net zero

GHG emissions occur around 2070 to be consistent with a 1.5°C target, and around 2100 or even later

for 2°C.

The Science of Staying

Below 2°C

Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Schaeffer, M., Knutti, R. & Riahi, K. Impact of short-lived non-CO

mitigation on carbon budgets for stabilizing global warming.

Environ Res Lett 10, 075001 (2015).

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

In order to signal to the world that the United States

is serious about confronting the climate crisis, the

next NDC must put the United States on the path

to economy-wide net zero GHG emissions by 2050,

consistent with meeting global temperature goals.

Moreover, the United States has both the ability and

the responsibility as an advanced economy and

the world’s second largest emitter to demonstrate

leadership and move even more rapidly than the

trajectory implied by a simple straight-line emissions

trajectory to net zero. The Paris Agreement establishes

that all NDCs will represent a progression beyond

the previous NDC and a country’s highest possible

ambition.

To be consistent with this provision and

commensurate with NDCs recently set forth by other

advanced economies, the Biden administration

should put forward an ambitious target of reducing

total net U.S. GHG emissions at least 50% below 2005

levels by 2030. As a component of the new NDC, the

administration should include an explicit commitment

to reduce methane emissions in order to help slow the

rate of warming over the coming decades and limit

peak warming. Given currently available mitigation

technologies and approaches, a target of reducing

methane emissions by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030

economy-wide is reasonable and would be broadly

consistent with the “topline” goal of at least a 50%

reduction in GHG emissions across the economy (See

Appendix C for more information on the methane

target).

In setting the NDC, the United States should also

demonstrate best practice, including by specifying

a specific quantifiable value (i.e., 50%) for the target

year of 2030, rather than a target range (e.g. 26-28%);

precisely identifying target years and timeframes for

implementation, noting that a multi-year budget

approach to the target is more environmentally

robust than a single year or point target; identifying

all assumptions and methodologies underpinning

the NDC, including the approach to accounting for

land use and forests; specifying how the NDC will be

implemented; describing how it is fair and ambitious;

and specifying how it contributes to meeting the Paris

Agreement temperature goals. The United States

should also consider setting a multi-year budget,

reflecting the fact that climate change is driven by the

accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere rather than

emissions in any single year. (See text box on pg. 12).

Raising the Bar for Ambition

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

There were significant transparency gaps in the initial NDCs that made it difficult to understand

the resulting emissions levels or reductions, the gases and sectors covered, the data and accounting

underpinning the headline targets, and the timelines associated with the NDCs. To address this problem,

the Paris Agreement “rulebook,” made up of a series of decisions agreed to at COP24 in 2018, sets out the

information needed for clarity, transparency and understanding (CTU) of the NDCs. In updating NDCs,

countries must provide the following information:

 Quantiableinformationonthereferencepointorbaseyear:This includes information on

the reference year or years and how the emissions are quantified in that year. For instance, many

countries use 1990 as the reference year (e.g. the EU NDC is a 55% reduction below 1990). Some

countries have different reference years for different gases (e.g. UK uses 1990 for CO

, methane, and

nitrous oxide, and 1995 for HFCs, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride).

The United States, in its first NDC, used a 2005 reference year for all GHGs.

Timeframes or periods for implementation: This includes information on the implementation

period (e.g. from January 1

, 2021 to December 31

, 2030) and whether the target is a single-year

target (where the target is achieved in the target year) or multi-year target (which establishes a

budget of emissions over the multi-year period). A single-year target, sometimes called a “point”

target, only requires a country to achieve the reduction (e.g. 50%) in the target year (e.g. 2030). A

multi-year target, on the other hand, establishes a ‘budget’ of emissions over the whole period. The

budget can be based on average emissions over the period or based on a trajectory over the period.

A point target offers little flexibility, raising the risk that external shocks, such as weather, drought

or disease in the target year create challenges for NDC achievement. A multi-year approach offers

more flexibility and so mitigates this risk as higher emissions in any given year can be offset by lower

emissions in other years over the period.

Information on scope and coverage: This includes information on the sectors and gases covered

by the NDC. The United States, as an advanced economy, should have an economy-wide NDC with

an absolute emissions reduction target. Developing countries might not initially have economy-

wide targets, but are encouraged to move towards economy-wide targets over time.

Planning processes: This includes information on the processes to prepare the NDC and

information on implementation.

Information crucial to accounting: This includes information on the assumptions and

methodological approaches to support the assessment of progress toward and achievement of the

NDCs. Accounting information is critical for understanding progress towards NDCs, including when

countries cooperate through carbon market mechanisms.

Information on fairness and ambition: This includes information about how the country

considers that its nationally determined contribution is fair and ambitious in light of its national

circumstances, reflecting on equity, and how the NDC represents a progression on the previous

NDC.

Contribution to objectives: This includes information on how the NDC contributes to the

temperature goals of the Paris Agreement and the objective of the UNFCCC.

In the Weeds: Getting the Details Right

on the Next NDC

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

Setting a new NDC Consistent with

a Path to Net Zero

A straight-line trajectory from 2018 GHG emissions

levels—the most recent year for which historical

emissions data has been finalized—to net zero by 2050

would imply an emissions reduction of roughly 44% by

2030 relative to 2005 (see Figure 1).

It is worth noting

that emissions dropped significantly in 2020 due to

the COVID-19 pandemic. Using preliminary projected

net GHG emissions in 2020 from the Rhodium Group

(RHG),

the 2030 target implied by the straight-line

path to net zero is roughly 48% below 2005 levels. This

drop in emissions has come at an enormous and tragic

cost—making investments that can simultaneously

accelerate clean energy deployment while creating

good paying jobs, improving health, and promoting

equity even more urgent.

Aiming for a “front-loaded” trajectory—one where

we cut emissions more in early years than would

be implied by the straight-line path—comes with

significant climate benefits over all timescales. Early

mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants, such

as methane, can significantly slow down the rate

of warming in the near-term, and with it, climate

damages, while allowing for the same maximum

warming to be reached even if CO

emissions persist to

a limited degree past 2050. Similarly, early mitigation

of long-lived climate pollutants, such as CO

, reduces

the increase in atmospheric concentrations, which is

essential for limiting long-term warming and achieving

eventual climate stabilization.

In addition, if we can reduce more emissions in

earlier years, we will increase our chances of meeting

domestic and international climate goals and allow

greater flexibility down the road as we tackle more

difficult-to-abate emissions from sectors such as

heavy industry and aviation. Overall, aiming for more

reductions than the straight-line path will unlock

greater ambition at home and abroad and help

position the United States to be a strong competitor in

the 21st century global clean energy economy.

EPA, “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2018,” 2020,

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2020-main-text.pdf.

Kate Larsen, Hannah Pitt, and Alfredo Rivera, “Preliminary US Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates for 2020,” Research Note (Rhodium Group, January 12,

2021), https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-2020/.

Figure 1: High Ambition and Straight-line Paths to Net Zero by 2050

NET U.S. GHG EMISSIONS

Notes: Emissions data include all GHGs and rely on AR4 100-year GWP values. 2005-2018 emissions are from EPA’s GHG Inventory.

Progress toward net zero 2050 emissions begins in 2018 and does not adjust based on preliminary RHG 2019-20 GHG estimates.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

A Fair and Ambitious NDC to Enable

Greater Climate Ambition Abroad

When submitting its NDC, the Biden administration

will be required to describe how the new U.S.

contribution is fair and ambitious in light of its

national circumstances and reflecting on equity. In

order to be credible, the U.S. NDC will be expected to

be comparable to those put forward by other advanced

economies. To date, 72 countries representing more

than 28% of global emissions have submitted new

or updated NDCs. Most advanced economies have

submitted NDCs with enhanced ambition consistent

with climate neutrality by 2050. In December 2020,

the EU enhanced its NDC target from a 40% reduction

to a 55% reduction from 1990 levels by 2030. The UK

submitted an NDC increasing its target from a 53%

reduction

to a 68% reduction on 1990 levels by 2030

and Norway and Switzerland have both committed to

at least 50% reductions by 2030. Each of these updated

NDCs address the issue of fairness by confirming

that the NDC puts the country or region strongly on

the path recommended by the IPCC and consistent

with achieving net zero emissions by 2050. If the U.S.

NDC is not commensurate with this level of ambition,

the United States will continue to face serious

international credibility challenges.

A credible and ambitious NDC—one that targets at

least a 50% reduction from 2005 levels by 2030—will

provide the foundation for global U.S. leadership on

climate, including in an array of critical forums like

the G7 and the G20, the International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO), the International Maritime

Organization (IMO), the Climate and Clean Air

Coalition (CCAC), the Artic Council, and beyond.

Renewed international credibility will enable the Biden

administration to champion critical opportunities

to protect tropical forests and to reduce methane

emissions—both crucial to avoiding the most

dangerous impacts of climate change. Recapturing

a strong standing on the world stage will also be

important to extending our nation’s reach and

bolstering efforts to promote other American values

abroad.

This is an estimate of the UK’s previous contribution to the EU’s NDC of at least 40% by 2030 because the NDC put forward in 2020 is the first NDC put forward

by the United Kingdom after Brexit.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

ReapingtheBenetsforAmerican

Economic Prosperity, Health, and

Equity

The United States has much to gain from charting an

ambitious path on climate over the coming decade.

With continued growth in emissions, annual damages

from climate change in the United States are projected

to reach hundreds of billions of dollars.

In addition

to the core economic and environmental benefits of

tackling the climate crisis, well-targeted climate policy

and clean energy investment can:

• Create millions of good jobs for American

workers: Growing clean energy and low carbon

industries are capable of expanding to support

millions of jobs.

Ambitious U.S. action—

including economic relief and recovery spending

to support the development of a U.S. low-carbon

manufacturing sector, infrastructure investment,

and expanded federal investment in innovation—

can help rebuild the post-COVID economy and

expand access to high-quality employment across

all 50 states, including in regions of the country that

have experienced job losses due to declines in the

manufacturing and extractive industries.

• Save hundreds of thousands of lives: Slashing U.S.

climate pollution consistent with limiting warming

to 2°C could prevent nearly 300,000 premature

deaths by 2030 from reduced exposure to dangerous

air pollution, and save an additional 35,000 lives

a year thereafter, generating national economic

benefits on the order of $250 billion per year.

New

EDF analysis finds that eliminating tailpipe pollution

from on-road vehicles alone could prevent over

150,000 premature deaths by 2050.

• Enable a more equitable future for all Americans:

Well-designed climate policy can be a critical tool for

addressing historical disparities in access to clean air

and water and generating economic opportunity in

in a range of different types of communities facing a

diversity of challenges. By prioritizing clean energy

investments that simultaneously create jobs and

deliver health benefits in frontline communities—

including low-income communities, communities of

color, and communities transitioning off of reliance

on the fossil fuel economy—we can help build a

more equitable economy for all Americans.

• Position the United States to be a leader in the

rapidly expanding global clean energy economy:

As the rest of the world moves to drive emissions

down to net zero, the market for clean technologies

is poised to grow rapidly. The global market for

renewable energy alone is expected to reach a

value of $1.5 trillion by 2025.

Aggressive federal

investment in emerging clean technologies and

industries can help position the United States to be

a strong competitor in the global 21st century clean

economy.

To ensure we capture these benefits, particularly with

respect to promoting equity and supporting energy

workers and communities in the transition to a clean

economy, policymakers will need to be intentional

and thoughtful about policy design that works for

Americans across the country. There are many paths to

getting to at least 50% reductions by 2030 and net zero

by 2050—and importantly, how we get there matters.

It is critical that American workers and consumers in

every community across the country are accounted

for and benefit from the policies put in place. Climate

policy can and should be designed to expand access

to economic opportunity, reduce exposure to health-

harming pollutants, improve equity, and empower

American workers in every community, while

remaining affordable for all.

USGCRP, “Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Global Change

Research Program, 2018), doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.

Saul Griffith and Sam Calisch, “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs” (Rewiring America, n.d.).

Drew T. Shindell, Yunha Lee, and Greg Faluvegi, “Climate and Health Impacts of US Emissions Reductions Consistent with 2 °C,” Nature Climate Change 6, no.

5 (May 2016): 503–7, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2935.

EDF has recently released an analysis of the benefits of eliminating tailpipe pollution from passenger vehicles by 2035 and will soon release an analysis of

the benefits of eliminating this pollution from medium and heavy-duty trucks and buses swiftly in urban and community applications and for all such vehicles

by 2040. These analyses build from the analysis included in this report in several important ways, including, for example, characterizing the health benefits of

protective pollution standards. These analyses build from the analysis included in this report in several important ways, including, for example, characterizing

the health benefits of protective pollution standards. The analyses find that protective pollution standards that achieve these light, medium- and heavy-duty

vehicle goals will reduce a cumulative total of over 15 billion metric tons of climate pollution by 2050 and reduce health harming pollution that will prevent over

150,000 premature deaths through that timeframe.

See http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/files/2021/01/FINAL-National-White-Paper-Protective-Clean-Car-Standards-1.26.21.pdf for more information.

Amit Narune and Eswara Prasad, “Renewable Energy Market by Type and End Use: Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2018-2025” (Allied

Market Research, May 2019), https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/renewable-energy-market.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

United States credibility on the world stage has been

severely undermined by the Trump administration’s

decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and

the accompanying assault on climate protections

just when every country needed to be going all-in to

reduce emissions. Moreover, this was not the first time

the United States flip-flopped on international climate

policy, having abandoned the Kyoto Protocol in 2001

when the Senate refused to ratify the agreement

negotiated by the Clinton administration.

Overcoming the understandable skepticism of our

international allies that the United States is both

serious about addressing climate change and able to

put in place the federal policies necessary to do so

will require the Biden administration to put forward

an achievable pledge and back it up with concrete

action. In order to be credible, it must be clear to the

rest of the world that one or more technologically and

economically feasible pathways exist to achieve it,

and—critically—that the White House and Congress

have the political will to pursue it.

Credibility is important in order to promote

confidence in the Paris process; pledging a level

of emissions reductions that is clearly out of reach

would undermine the value of the NDC. At the same

time, credibility requires a willingness to act boldly

and immediately to reduce emissions with every

tool available, including existing law as well as new

legislation. Credibility also requires that the NDC be

developed in a transparent and inclusive process—

with input from stakeholders across the United States,

including the private sector and civil society.

A 2030 target of at least 50% below 2005 GHG

emissions levels would put the United States on

the path to net zero, demonstrate ambition, and—

critically—is attainable with a strong whole-of-

government approach. Illustrating that it is achievable

is crucial to regaining the trust of the international

community.

Regaining Credibility With Action

The four analyses outlined in Table 1 demonstrate

that reducing emissions at least 50% below 2005

levels by 2030 is possible (see Figure 2) with robust

all-in action from both the administration and

Congress. Each of these analyses relies on a different

set of methodologies—including different models or

accounting tools—assumptions, and policy pathways,

which are described in further detail in Appendix A.

Although models are the best tools we have for

projecting the future, they are not crystal balls and are

only as good as the assumptions built into them. In

some instances, models may underestimate achievable

emissions reductions given inherent challenges with

predicting technological change and innovation, which

can lead to lower than projected abatement costs.

However, in other instances, models may fail to capture

on-the-ground realities that might make reductions

more difficult to achieve than projected (e.g. coal

retirements do not always occur despite uncompetitive

economics). Relying on a range of models, rather than

just one, provides greater confidence that the 50% goal

is within reach, and confirms that there are multiple

pathways to get there.

Moreover, there is strong evidence to suggest that

reductions even greater than 50% by 2030 are possible

given additional mitigation potential not fully captured

in these analyses in sectors such as power and oil and

gas methane. In addition, two of these analyses—EDF-

NEMS and America’s Pledge—do not capture the

significant decrease in emissions that has occurred due

to the economic recession stemming from the COVID

pandemic, and would likely show greater emissions

reductions if updated to reflect these and other recent

trends.

Reducing Emissions at Least 50% by

2030 is Achievable

All analyses listed rely on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report (AR4) 100-year global warming potential (GWP) values.

This is consistent with the methodology used in EPA’s 2020 Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. However, the IPCC has updated GWP values in

its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), and therefore AR4 GWP values do not reflect the most up-to-date scientific research. Additionally, the 100-year GWP masks the

near-term warming impact of short-lived climate forcers like methane, which is 84 times more potent than CO

on a 20-year timescale in terms of its warming effect

on the atmosphere.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

Figure 2: A range of analyses demonstrate that the United States can

cut GHG emissions at least 50% below 2005 level by 2030

Table 1: Summary of Analyses

Analysis Modeling Team Model(s) Summary of Policy Scenario Projected 2030

Emissions Reduction

(% below 2005 levels)

EDF-NEMS

Modeling

GCAM

Modeling

America’s

Pledge

EDF Sectoral

Analysis

Designed and

directed by EDF

and modeled by

Rhodium Group

University of

Maryland Center for

Global Sustainability

University of

Maryland Center for

Global Sustainability

and Rocky Mountain

Institute

EDF

RHG-NEMS

GCAM-USA

ATHENA,

GCAM-USA

Various

51%

49%

51%

A suite of sector-specific policies

that reflect federal executive

action, technology investments,

complementary Congressional

action, and an economy-wide limit

and price on carbon.

A suite of sector-specific policies

that includes federal executive

action and stimulus incentives.

Expanded bottom-up action by

states, cities, and businesses

together with sector-specific fed-

eral executive and Congressional

action.

A suite of sector-specific policies,

reflective of federal executive

action under existing authority,

new legislation, and additional

incentives.

Notes: Emissions data include all GHGs and rely on AR4 100-year GWP values. 2030 reductions are depicted according to the 2005

baseline used in each respective analysis. The 2005 baseline depicted by the gray dotted line relies on EPA’s GHG Inventory baseline

adjusted upward based on EDF’s analysis of oil and gas methane emissions.

NET U.S. GHG EMISSIONS

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

EDF-NEMS Modeling

Designed and directed by EDF and modeled

by Rhodium Group, this analysis shows that a

combination of strong sector-specific policies through

regulatory action and clean energy incentives in

legislation—as well as a limit and price on carbon

across the economy—can get the United States to

at least 51% below 2005 levels in 2030. All scenarios

were designed and directed by EDF and modeled

by Rhodium Group using the RHG-NEMS model

maintained and operated by the Rhodium Group.

The bulk of the emission reductions—almost 60%—

come from the power sector, which achieves an 80%

reduction below 2005 emissions levels, followed by

the transportation, LULUCF,

and industrial sectors

(See Figure 3). The economy-wide limit and price

on carbon helps drive greater emission reductions

on a faster timeline by unlocking the fastest and

cheapest reductions first, such as those in the power

sector, while additional targeted policies help capture

reductions outside the scope of the limit and price,

such as methane from the oil and gas sector.

All policy scenario specifications, interpretation of results and policy recommendations that follow are also EDF’s and do not reflect the views of Rhodium Group

or its staff.

LULUCF includes emissions from land-use, land-use change, and forestry. The net negative emissions for this sector are largely driven by carbon sequestered

in U.S. forests. The National Academy of Sciences has estimated above ground carbon storage potential from afforestation and forest management of 250

MMT CO

equivalent per year. EDF is actively working to update these estimates using new information and analytic processes to identify the management

practices and geographies where carbon storage potential is greatest. (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Negative Emissions

Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25259.)

While this analysis assumed oil and gas methane emission reductions of 45% below 2012 levels by 2025, greater reductions of at least 65% below 2012 levels

by 2025 are feasible with currently available technologies and approaches, consistent with the economy-wide methane goal of 40% in Appendix C.)

In its most recent “Taking Stock” report, Rhodium Group examines a range of uncertainty in emission projections due to COVID-19’s impact on the US

economy. Under Rhodium Group’s most optimistic or “V-shaped” economic recovery, emissions under a No Additional Action Reference scenario, which

includes all existing federal and state policies “on the books” as of May 2020, are at 19% below 2005 levels in 2030. Under a more pessimistic or “W-shaped”

economic recovery, emissions under a No Additional Action Reference scenario reach 23% below 2005 levels in 2030. (Larsen et al., “Taking Stock 2020: The

COVID-19 Edition.”)

There is reason to believe even greater reductions

are possible. Given currently available technologies

and approaches, there is likely additional mitigation

of methane emissions available from the oil and

gas sector than is reflected in this analysis. If those

reductions were accounted for, consistent with the

economy-wide methane goal of 40% put forward

in this report and outlined in Appendix C, overall

economy-wide reductions would increase from 51% to

roughly 52% below 2005 levels by 2030.

In addition,

the EDF-NEMS modeling was conducted pre-COVID

(2019-2020) and therefore does not account for the

significant drop in emissions due to the economic

recession associated with the pandemic. While the

modeling itself does not speak to this issue, we believe

that if this analysis were updated to reflect these recent

trends, in combination with additional state and local

climate action and continuing declining renewable

energy and technology costs, further reductions below

2005 levels might be achievable by 2030.

Figure 3: Achieving Net Zero Climate Pollution, EDF-NEMS Modeling Results

TOTAL U.S. GHG EMISSIONS

Notes: Emissions data include all GHGs and rely on AR4 100-year GWP values. All EDF-NEMS scenarios were designed and directed

by EDF and modeled by Rhodium Group using RHG-NEMS, a version of the National Energy Modeling System maintained and

operated by Rhodium.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

America’s Pledge

Conducted by the University of Maryland Center for

Global Sustainability and Rocky Mountain Institute

using the ATHENA and GCAM-USA models, this

analysis shows economy-wide net GHG emissions

reaching 49% below 2005 levels in 2030 with a

combination of new federal and subnational policies.

Similar to the GCAM Modeling analysis, the America’s

Pledge analysis shows that even without a limit and

price on carbon, sector-specific action alone—in

the form of expanded state, city, and business action

together with ambitious federal executive and

Congressional action—can get us in the range of 50%

below 2005 levels in 2030.

Like EDF-NEMS, this analysis was conducted pre-

COVID (in 2019) and therefore does not account

for the significant drop in emissions due to the

economic recession associated with the pandemic.

If this analysis were updated to reflect these recent

trends, in combination with additional state, city, and

business commitments that have been subsequently

announced, economy-wide net GHG emission

reductions in 2030 would likely be greater.

GCAM Modeling

This analysis of opportunities for U.S. emissions

reductions was conducted by the University of

Maryland Center for Global Sustainability using the

global integrated assessment model GCAM-USA. This

analysis shows that a suite of sector-specific policies

across all sectors and gases, including stimulus and

investment incentives, executive actions, and more,

can reduce emissions by 51% from 2005 levels by

2030.

The analysis shows that even in the absence of

an economy-wide emissions limit and price on carbon,

a well-coordinated package of sector-specific actions,

in the form of ambitious executive and Congressional

action, can get us to 51% below 2005 levels in 2030.

Similar to the EDF-NEMS analysis, the bulk of

emission reductions come from the power sector,

which achieves a 76% reduction below 2005 emissions

levels, followed by the transportation sector.

Importantly, this analysis achieves relatively

conservative methane emission reductions (16%

economy-wide). If methane reductions were increased

to align with the 40% economy-wide methane goal

put forward in this report and outlined in Appendix C,

economy-wide reductions for total net GHGs would

increase from 51% to more than 53% below 2005 levels

by 2030.

University of Maryland Center for Global Sustainability, “Charting an Ambitious U.S. NDC of 51% Reductions by 2030 (2021),

https://cgs.umd.edu/research-impact/publications/working-paper-charting-ambitious-us-ndc.

America’s Pledge also examined the range of uncertainty using varying assumptions about socioeconomic change, technological change, fossil prices, and the

size of the land use sink, and found that emission reductions in the “All-In” strategy could be as high as 52% below 2005 levels in 2030. (The America’s Pledge

Initiative on Climate Change, “Accelerating America’s Pledge: Going All-In To Build a Prosperous, Low-Carbon Economy for the United States” (New York:

Bloomberg Philanthropies, University of Maryland Center for Global Sustainability, Rocky Mountain Institute, World Resources Institute, 2019),

https://assets.bbhub.io/dotorg/sites/28/2019/12/Accelerating-Americas-Pledge.pdf.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

EDF Sectoral Analysis

This analysis was conducted by EDF using a

combination of modeling and spreadsheet accounting,

relying on internal EDF analysis and expertise for

estimating the potential emission reductions from

the power, transportation, oil and gas methane, and

agricultural and forestry sectors under a suite of sector-

specific policies.

This analysis shows that a suite of

policies reflective of existing authority, new legislation

and new incentives can drive economy-wide net GHG

emissions down to at least 51% below 2005 levels in

2030.

This analysis assumes that federal executive action,

new legislation, and stimulus incentives would achieve

power sector emission reductions of 80% below 2005

in 2030. Additional analyses, such as a recent deep

decarbonization study from Princeton University,

indicate that this level of reductions from the power

sector is within reach

and an EDF analysis performed

by ICF using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM

)

showed that even greater power sector emission

reductions—90% below 2005 levels in 2030—are

possible.

Using this higher level of ambition for

the power sector, economy-wide net GHG emission

reductions would increase from 51% to more than 54%

below 2005 levels by 2030. Combining this with the

additional methane mitigation from the oil and gas

sector described in Appendix C, this reduction would

increase further to more than 55%.

Key policies embedded in this analysis and critical to

meeting the overarching 50% goal include:

1. New legislation limiting emissions from the power

sector, such as a clean electricity standard,

designed to reduce emissions by at least 80% below

2005 levels by 2030 on the path to zero emissions

by 2035. Combined with multi-pollutant standards

adopted under existing law, as well as long-term

EDF analysis of transportation and oil and gas methane emission reductions was informed by the Optimization Model for reducing Emissions of Greenhouse

Gases from Automobiles (OMEGA) for light-duty vehicles, ongoing M.J. Bradley & Associates analysis for EDF for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, and EDF’s

internal oil and gas methane model.

E. Larson et al., “Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, Interim Report” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, December 15, 2020),

https://environmenthalfcentury.princeton.edu/.

Based on power sector IPM modeling of clean energy standard scenarios developed by EDF and performed by ICF.

There is evidence that much greater oil and gas methane emission reductions are achievable consistent with the methane targets included in Appendix C.

extension and expansion of clean energy tax credits,

these policies are critical to ensure we decarbonize the

power sector on a timeline that can enable swift and

broad electrification of other sectors with clean power.

2. Vehicle standards that ensure that by 2035, all cars,

and by 2040, all freight trucks and buses sold in the

United States are zero-emitting, while accelerating

the transition to zero for all freight vehicles operating

in communities and urban centers. Combined

with policies designed to lower barriers to adoption;

accelerate stock turnover; increase equitable access

to clean vehicles; support domestic manufacturing

and supply chains, including production of batteries;

build infrastructure in all communities; and invest in

mass transit services, these policies can supercharge

transformation of our vehicle fleets, cutting climate

pollution while improving air quality in communities

across the country.

3. Methane standards for new and existing oil and

gas operations and facilities, designed to reduce

emissions from these facilities by at least 45% from

2012 levels by 2025.

Congress should also provide

funds to plug orphan wells—cutting emissions and

creating jobs for transitioning oil and gas workers—and

additional incentives for innovative technology to detect

and repair methane leaks.

4. Advances in climate-smart agriculture and forestry

to reduce net emissions through voluntary markets

and incentives, including changes to farm programs

to support climate-friendly practices and incentives to

prevent forest conversion, help landowners improve the

resilience and productivity of their existing forestland,

increase the pace of reforestation, and use low carbon

building materials, especially wood. The federal

government should also greatly increase investment

in reforestation and increasing the resilience of federal

forestland.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

Beyond the four analyses described above, several additional analyses provide further evidence that at

least 50% by 2030 is attainable. Resources for the Future (RFF) offers a publicly available tool: a “carbon

pricing calculator” that projects the impact of a carbon price on economy-wide energy-related CO

emissions.

This tool demonstrates that a carbon price starting at $55-$67/ton CO

in 2022 rising 5%

annually, or one that starts lower but rises more rapidly, can achieve roughly 49-52% gross reductions

in energy CO

from 2005 levels by 2030. RFF modeling shows that similar reductions could be achieved

by several bipartisan bills in the 116th Congress. Energy-related CO

represents the bulk of total GHG

emissions, and reductions of this magnitude are aligned with energy CO

reductions achieved in the

analyses of total net GHGs described above, further indicating that reductions in total net U.S. GHG

emissions of at least 50% below 2005 levels by 2030 are within reach.

Three additional models included in the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum 32 study indicate reductions

of this magnitude or higher are possible from economy-wide carbon pricing, even at the low end of

the RFF pricing calculator range outlined above. The Dynamic Integrated Economy/Energy/Emissions

Model (DIEM), the G-Cubed model, and Environment and Climate Change Canada’s multi-sector, multi-

region model (EC-MSMR)

all find that a $55/ton CO

price rising 5% annually could achieve reductions

in the 50% to over 60% range by 2030.

Additional Evidence that At Least

50% is Feasible

RFF’s carbon pricing toll can be found at: https://www.rff.org/publications/data-tools/carbon-pricing-calculator/

See https://emf.stanford.edu/projects/emf-32-us-ghg-and-revenue-recycling-scenarios; Information on each of these models can be found in James R. Mcfarland et

al., “Overview of the EMF 32 Study on U.S. Carbon Tax Scenarios,” Climate Change Economics 09, no. 01 (February 2018): 1840002,

https://doi.org/10.1142/S201000781840002X.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Opportunities for Deep Decarbonization in the United States, 2021-2030,” in Accelerating

Decarbonization of the U.S. Energy System (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2021), https://doi.org/10.17226/25932. Larson et al., “Net-Zero America:

Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts, Interim Report.” James H. Williams et al., “Carbon-Neutral Pathways for the United States,” AGU Advances 2, no. 1

(2021): e2020AV000284, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020AV000284.

According to the Evolved Energy Research study, recent technological progress has reduced the cost of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 to about $1 per

person per day. Williams et al., “Carbon-Neutral Pathways for the United States.”

The four analyses presented above, together with

additional evidence from various carbon pricing

modeling and deep decarbonization literature (see

text box above), demonstrate that a reduction of

50% is achievable, and, moreover, there are good

reasons to believe that even greater reductions are

possible by updating the models to align with the

latest trends (e.g. the recent economic recession and

declining clean energy costs) as well as with improved

understanding of abatement opportunities. Three

recent deep decarbonization studies (the Princeton

University study noted above, as well as two additional

studies from the National Academies of Sciences and

Evolved Energy Research), explore paths to net zero

by 2050.

These studies highlight key abatement

opportunities—such as natural and technological

removal and widespread electrification. Not all of

these are fully captured in all of the models presented

here, and incorporating some of these priorities into

the modeling efforts described above could push some

of these scenarios to greater than a 50% reduction by

2030. Other updates, such as incorporating updated

declining costs of a transition to net zero would also

push abatement further.

While the different analyses share several

commonalities—including a strong emphasis on

the need for both executive branch regulation using

existing authorities as well as robust investment and

new legislation from Congress—the policies relied

on to achieve these reductions vary. Some analyses—

such as the EDF-NEMS and the RFF analyses—utilize

an economy-wide carbon price to align incentives

towards reducing emissions across most major

emitting sectors, while others—such as the GCAM

modeling—rely solely on sector-specific policies

and incentives. The analyses further differ in their

choice of sector-specific policies and the details of

their implementation, demonstrating that there are

multiple credible pathways to at least 50% by 2030.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

A Whole-of-Government Approach

is Needed

These analyses demonstrate that meeting the 50%

goal demands rapid and dramatic transformation

of our energy system, including accelerated and

significant deployment of clean electricity generation

and electric vehicles. Progress must also be made to

drive down powerful methane pollution from oil and

gas production, as well as emissions from industry

and buildings. They also show that maintaining and

expanding carbon sinks in the lands sector will be

critically important to achieving both the 2030 goal as

well as net zero.

The scope and scale of the necessary changes demand

a swift and concerted whole-of-government effort to

put in place policies to cut emissions from all major

emitting sectors, incentivize and ramp up deployment

of clean technologies, and orient investments towards

low and zero carbon solutions. This includes a suite

of strong climate and clean energy protections under

existing law targeting major emitting sectors like

power, transportation, and methane emissions from

oil and gas. The Biden administration has already

taken important steps to reverse the environmental

rollbacks made by the Trump administration on each

of these key sectors and replace them with stronger

climate protections, but it will need to ramp up

quickly in these early days to leverage all the tools at its

disposal under existing law.

While the administration can make an enormous

amount of progress on its own, these analyses make

clear that executive action by itself will not be sufficient

to meet the 50% by 2030 goal—or get us to net zero by

2050. To close the gap, we will need strong action from

Congress – including legislation that centers strong

climate and clean energy measures in the next round

of economic recovery investments.

We also need continued leadership and action on

climate by states, cities, and businesses. Over the

past four years, subnational actors have stepped

up, making strong commitments to concrete GHG

emission reduction targets. It’s time to deliver—and

for state governors, in particular, to translate those

commitments into reality. States have robust authority

under existing environmental statutes to regulate GHG

pollution, and the urgency to tackle these emissions

head-on couldn’t be greater. To ensure that we meet

the 50% by 2030 goal or higher on the path to net

zero, we need a whole-of-government approach that

includes adopting comprehensive climate policies at

both the federal and state level.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

A Limit and a Price Would Accelerate

Progress and Ensure We Hit Our

Climate Goals

While these analyses show that there are multiple

pathways to meet the 50% goal, including through

different combinations of aggressive sector-by-sector

policies, not all pathways are created equal. While it

is possible to get to at least 50% with sector-specific

action alone, an enforceable declining limit and a price

on emissions economy-wide would get us there more

quickly and affordably—supercharging action to cut

pollution across major emitting sectors and providing

a critical backstop to ensure we meet our goal. It would

also raise significant revenue that could be directed

towards critical priorities such as promoting equity,

supporting energy workers and communities impacted

by the transition to a clean economy, and investing

in innovation and emerging clean technologies. For

example, according to the RFF Calculator, a $55/ton

carbon price rising at 5% annually would yield roughly

$2.5 trillion over the next decade.

An ambitious and credible 2030 U.S. NDC will be key

to restoring U.S. leadership and building momentum

on climate action in advance of COP26. High ambition

is needed to align the United States with the goals of

the international community and the best science

around climate impacts, as well as to galvanize

increased action at home and around the world. At the

same time, the NDC must have a realistic pathway to

success to be credible with our international allies. A

target of reducing total net U.S. GHG emissions at least

50% from 2005 emissions levels by 2030 is necessary to

meet both criteria.

In addition, given the urgency of reducing powerful

pollutants like methane to immediately slow the rate

of temperature rise and limit peak warming, the Biden

administration should set specific reduction targets

for short-lived climate pollutants, consistent with

the overarching 50% goal, including a reduction in

methane emissions of 40% from 2005 levels. Such a

By tapping the fastest and cheapest reductions

available first, and orienting incentives towards low

and zero carbon solutions across all major emitting

sectors, an economy-wide limit and price can help

drive greater emissions reductions on a faster timeline,

while simultaneously reducing the overall cost to

American businesses, industries, and consumers.

Designed well, such a mechanism can serve as a

magnet that aligns efforts to cut pollution across

the entire economy, making targeted sector-specific

policies cheaper and easier to achieve, while driving

investment in innovation and moving us more rapidly

towards net zero.

To ensure that the benefits of these policies are spread

across all communities, carbon pricing policies should

be designed to promote equity, ensure affordability,

invest in American workers, protect overburdened

communities, and support those most directly affected

by climate change and the transition to a cleaner

economy.

target could have a measurable and immediate impact

on the rate of warming and expected temperature

impacts in the near-term.

Achieving these targets will require immediate and

robust federal action under existing law as well as

new legislation. Congress took initial steps to bolster

clean energy spending in the year-end stimulus

package passed in December, but additional economic

recovery investments focused on accelerating the

transition to a clean economy, while creating jobs and

building healthier and more equitable communities,

is critical. A whole-of-government effort including

strong legislation from Congress coupled with robust

regulatory action by executive branch leadership,

can get us to at least a 50% reduction by 2030. An

enforceable declining limit on emissions and a price

on carbon can supercharge action across the economy,

allowing us to get there faster and more affordably, and

ensure we hit our climate goals.

Conclusion

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

This appendix provides further detail on the four analyses includes in Table 1 and the “Carbon Pricing Tool”

developed by Resources for the Future (RFF), including information on the methods and models used, assumptions

underpinning the “No Additional Action” reference scenarios (in which no new policies are implemented) and the

“Policy Scenarios,” and key insights.

EDF-NEMS Modeling

Methods: This analysis was designed and directed by EDF and modeled by Rhodium Group. All energy system

modeling was done using RHG-NEMS, a version of the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) maintained

and operated by Rhodium Group. NEMS is used by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to produce the

Annual Energy Outlook. All non-energy emission reductions were estimated by EDF.

This modeling was conducted

pre-COVID (2019-2020) and does not take into account the impacts of the pandemic and resulting decrease in

emissions.

No Additional Action Scenario: The No Additional Action Reference scenario relied on Rhodium Group’s Taking

Stock 2019 Current Policy projections using central oil and natural gas prices and technology costs, updated to

incorporate clean technology cost and performance estimates from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s

2019 Annual Technology Baseline. Oil and gas methane emissions were adjusted to reflect higher methane leak

rates than the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Inventory based on EDF analysis.

This

scenario incorporated all existing federal and state policies “on the books” as of June 2019 and reflects the Trump

administration’s federal rollbacks of light-duty vehicle standards and methane regulations.

Policy Scenario: The Policy scenario represents a suite of sector-specific policies and an economy-wide limit and

price on energy CO

. The sector-specific policies are reflective of existing authority action and/or sector-specific

legislation or incentives. This includes policies such as next generation power sector carbon pollution standards and

public health complementary regulations, next generation light-duty and medium/heavy-duty vehicle standards,

and oil and gas methane standards for new and existing sources. It also includes policies such as buildings efficiency

standards, industrial sector standards and/or incentives, agricultural and forestry policies that reduce nitrous oxide,

methane, and CO

emissions and increase carbon removal, and U.S. ratification and implementation of the Kigali

Amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase out the consumption and production of hydrofluorocarbons.

Key insights: Under the No Additional Action Reference scenario, economy-wide net GHG emissions in 2030

were 14% below 2005 levels and under the Policy scenario were 51% below 2005 levels. This represents nearly 2.5

billion metric tons of GHG emission reductions—a roughly 43% reduction—compared to the No Additional Action

Reference scenario in 2030.

The bulk of the 2030 Policy Scenario emission reductions relative to 2005 levels—almost 60% —come from the

power sector which reaches approximately 80% below 2005 levels, followed by the transportation, LULUCF,

and industrial sectors (See Figure 3). The economy-wide limit and price on carbon helps drive greater emission

reductions on a faster timeline by unlocking the fastest and cheapest reductions first, such as those in the power

sector, while additional targeted policies help capture reductions outside the scope of the limit and price, such as

methane from the oil and gas sector.

The analysis also included a sensitivity which showed how innovation policies can yield similar emission reductions

at lower cost and hence enable greater reductions at the same cost. In fact, at the time of this analysis, we assumed

that sector-specific policies for light-duty vehicles would achieve 50% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035.

Appendix A

Analysis Methodology and Assumptions

All scenario specifications were developed by EDF and the interpretation of results and policy recommendations that follow are EDF’s and do not reflect the

views of Rhodium Group or its staff.

Ramón A. Alvarez et al., “Assessment of Methane Emissions from the U.S. Oil and Gas Supply Chain,” Science 361, no. 6398 (July 13, 2018): 186–88,

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7204.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

Since then battery cost projections have continued to decline in addition to increased state and private sector action and

commitments, and we now expect sector-specific policies such as next generation light-duty vehicle standards together

with incentives could achieve 100% zero-emission light-duty vehicle sales by 2035.

GCAM Modeling

Methods: This new analysis was conducted by the University of Maryland Center for Global Sustainability to estimate

the impacts of a suite of sector-specific policies that include executive authority action and stimulus incentives.

The

assessment was carried out using GCAM-USA, a 50-state version of the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM) —a

global integrated assessment model.

No Additional Action Scenario: The No Additional Action Reference scenario reflects a counterfactual scenario where no

additional policies are implemented beyond policies already in place.

Policy Scenario: The Policy scenario reflects emission reductions possible under a suite of sector-specific policies

including executive action and incentives. This includes power sector regulations for coal and gas, light-duty as well as

medium- and heavy-duty vehicle standards, oil and gas methane regulations, industrial and buildings efficiency standards

in addition to renewable and 45Q tax credit extensions, nuclear incentives, vehicle incentives and programs such as cash

for clunkers, and investment in forests and improved land management practices. In some cases, the specific policies were

not explicitly modeled, and other tools were used as a proxy to model the impacts of those policies.

Key insights: Similar to the EDF-NEMS analysis described above, the bulk of emission reductions relative to 2005 levels

come from the power sector followed by the transportation sector. The analysis shows that even without a limit and price

on carbon, sector-specific action alone, in the form of ambitious executive and congressional action, can get us to 50%

below 2005 levels in 2030.

America’s Pledge

Methods: The America’s Pledge analysis used an interactive two-step approach to assess the impacts from expanded

actions by states, cities, and businesses together with complementary and ambitious federal action as part of an “All-

In” U.S. climate strategy.

The first step used sector-specific, bottom-up models referred to as the Aggregation Tool for

modeling Historic and Enhanced Non-federal Actions (ATHENA), and the second involved economy-wide analysis using

GCAM-USA.

No Additional Action Scenario: The No Additional Action Reference scenario reflects existing “on-the-books” policies as

of 2019, including binding policies on the part of states, cities, and businesses, in addition to technological and economic

trends.

Policy Scenario: The Policy scenario represents America’s Pledge “All-In” climate strategy which includes bottom-

up expansion of climate policies by states, cities, and businesses combined with sector-specific federal executive and

congressional action.

These strategies rely on three main principles: (1) accelerating toward 100% clean electricity and

other energy supplies; (2) decarbonizing energy end-uses in transportation, buildings, and industry, primarily through

electrification and efficiency; and (3) enhancing the carbon storage potential of forests, farms, and coastal wetlands.

Key insights: The Policy scenario achieves almost 80% clean electricity generation in 2030, including close to 50%

from renewable energy, and more than 60% light-duty zero emission vehicle sales in 2030, on a path to 100% shortly

thereafter. While the power sector contributes the largest emission reductions in 2030, strategies in other sectors such as

transportation lead to growing emission reductions in later years.

University of Maryland Center for Global Sustainability, “Charting an Ambitious U.S. NDC of 51% Reductions by 2030 (2021),

https://cgs.umd.edu/research-impact/publications/working-paper-charting-ambitious-us-ndc.

The America’s Pledge Initiative on Climate Change, “Accelerating America’s Pledge: Going All-In To Build a Prosperous, Low-Carbon Economy for the United States.””

America’s Pledge analysis was conducted pre-COVID. In 2020, America’s Pledge assessed the impacts of recent trends due to COVID-19 and found increased confidence

in the ability of bottom-up leaders to drive the ambitious 2030 emission reductions assumed in the analysis. Federal stimulus programs that include ambitious clean energy

investments and policies also provide a critical opportunity to support climate ambition. (The America’s Pledge Initiative on Climate Change, “Delivering on America’s

Pledge: Achieving Climate Progress in 2020” (New York: Bloomberg Philanthropies, University of Maryland Center for Global Sustainability, Rocky Mountain Institute, World

Resources Institute, 2020), https://assets.bbhub.io/dotorg/sites/28/2020/09/Delivering-on-Americas-Pledge.pdf.)

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

EDF Sectoral Analysis

Methods: EDF did a combination of modeling and spreadsheet accounting to estimate the potential emission reductions

possible under a suite of sector-specific policies, reflective of existing authority, new legislation and incentives, and relying

on internal EDF analysis and expertise for the power, transportation, oil and gas methane, and agricultural sectors.

No Additional Action Scenario: The No Additional Action Reference scenario we used was the midpoint of Rhodium

Group’s Taking Stock 2020 “V-shaped” and “W-shaped” economic recovery scenarios and reflects all existing federal and

state policies “on the books” as of May 2020.

Policy Scenario: The Policy scenario reflects:

• Next generation power sector carbon pollution standards and public health complementary regulations, in addition to

new legislation limiting emissions from the power sector, such as a clean electricity standard and long-term extension

and expansion of clean energy tax credits, achieving power sector reductions of at least 80% below 2005 in 2030

• Next generation vehicle standards and incentives achieving 100% zero emission vehicle sales by 2035 for light-duty

vehicles and by 2040 for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles

• Oil and gas methane standards for new and existing sources in addition to state action achieving reductions of at least

45% below 2012 levels by 2025.

• Climate-smart agriculture and forestry practices that reduce net emissions through voluntary markets and incentives,

including changes to farm programs to support climate-friendly practices and incentives to prevent forest conversion,

help landowners improve the resilience and productivity of their existing forestland, increase the pace of reforestation,

and use low carbon building materials, especially wood; and increased investment in reforestation and federal

forestland resilience.

In addition, rough estimates of emission reductions possible from buildings efficiency standards, industrial sector

standards and incentives, and U.S. ratification and implementation of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol

were included.

Key insights: As in other analyses, the bulk of emission reductions relative to 2005 levels come from the power sector

followed by transportation and LULUCF. Together, the power, transportation, and oil and gas methane sectors alone result

in economy-wide net GHG emissions of 38% below 2005 levels in 2030, more than 75% of the way towards 50% below

2005 economy-wide net GHG emissions in 2030. The power sector contributes more than 55% of the emission reductions

needed to reach 50% economy-wide reduction in 2030 and the transportation contributes roughly one-fifth of the

emission reductions needed although this sector’s share of reductions grow significantly after 2030. Oil and gas methane

reductions have an outsized role in the near-term because methane is potent but short-lived. Therefore, methane’s relative

role in warming and mitigation compared to CO

is elevated when considering climate impacts over the next few decades

as opposed to the following century.

EDF analysis of transportation and oil and gas methane emission reductions was informed by the Optimization Model for reducing Emissions of Greenhouse

Gases from Automobiles (OMEGA) for light-duty vehicles, ongoing M.J. Bradley & Associates analysis for EDF for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, and EDF’s

internal oil and gas methane model.

Oil and gas methane emissions were adjusted to reflect higher methane leak rates than EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory based on EDF analysis.

While not included in this analysis, there is evidence that much greater oil and gas methane emission reductions are achievable in 2030 consistent with the

methane targets included in Appendix C.

There is evidence that much greater oil and gas methane emission reductions are achievable consistent with the methane targets included in Appendix C.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

RFF Carbon Pricing Calculator

Methods: Resources for the Future (RFF) offers a publicly available tool that demonstrates the impact of a carbon

price on economywide energy-related CO

emissions.

The calculator reports business-as-usual and price-reduced

emissions as modeled in the Goulder-Hafstead Energy-Environment-Economy E3 CGE Model. The current version of

the calculator reflects pre-COVID inputs and does not account for the impacts of the pandemic on emissions.

No Additional Action Scenario: The Business-as-usual emissions trajectory relies on reference case emissions and

GDP from the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) from the 2019 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). The Business-as-

usual projections assume existing energy sector laws and regulations remain in place throughout the projection period.

Policy Scenario: Custom price scenarios require a user to specify an initial tax price per metric ton, an annual growth

rate above inflation, and a revenue recycling option. The price is based on the carbon content of fossil fuels combusted

within the United States and is limited to energy-related CO

emissions. In these results, we assume revenue is recycled

in the form of a per household dividend. Although the RFF pricing calculator assumes that prices start in 2020, we

adjust these price trajectories to start in 2022, hence why reported prices are not round numbers.

See https://www.rff.org/publications/data-tools/carbon-pricing-calculator/.

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

This appendix provides further detail on the headline targets and current status of the NDCs submitted by G20

countries and advanced economies with updated NDCs, as well as information on the long-term targets in each

of these countries, where available. Countries have used different terminology to describe their long-term targets,

including carbon neutrality, net zero, and climate neutrality. The terms used by countries can also be different

depending on the context in which they are used (e.g. different terms may be used in a long-term strategy as

opposed to legislation). In some cases, a particular term is used to indicate the scope of coverage (e.g. only CO

vs all

GHGs) and in other cases the reason for using a particular term is not clear.

Appendix B

Status of NDCs & Long-Term Targets by Country

COUNTRY HEADLINE NDC TARGET LONG-TERM TARGET STATUS OF NDC UPDATE

Argentina Cap net emissions at 359 MtCO

in 2030

Carbon-neutral by 2050

(pledge)

NDC updated in 2020;

target strengthened

Australia Reduce GHG emissions 26-28%

below 2005 levels by 2030

NDC updated in 2020;

target unchanged

Brazil Reduce GHG emissions37% below

2005 levels in 2025, and 43% below

2005 levels in 2030

Carbon neutral by 2060 NDC updated in 2020;

target unchanged

Canada Reduce GHG emissions 30% below

2005 levels by 2030

Net zero by 2050 (pledge) NDC not updated;

update expected

China Peak CO

emissions before 2030 Carbon-neutral before 2060

(pledge)

New targets announced, but

NDC not updated; update

expected in 2021

Costa Rica Cap net GHG emissions at 9.11

MtCO

e by 2030

Net zero by 2050

(in long term strategy)

NDC updated in 2020;

target strengthened

EU Reduce GHG emissions at least 55%

below 1990 levels by 2030

Net zero by 2050

(EU law in co-decision)

NDC updated in 2020;

target strengthened

India Reduce GDO emissions intensity

33-35% below 2005 levels by 2030

NDC not updated

Indonesia Reduce GHG emissions 29%

(unconditional) and up to 41%

(conditional) below BAU

scenario

by 2030

NDC not updated;

unchanged target

Japan Reduce GHG emissions 25.4%

below FY 2005 levels by 2030

Net zero by 2050 (pledge) NDC updated in 2020;

target unchanged;

Mexico Reduce GHG emissions 22% below

BAU scenario by 2030; reduce black

carbon emissions 51% below BAU

scenario by 2030

NDC updated in 2020;

target unchanged

BAU refers to “business as usual.”

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

COUNTRY HEADLINE TARGET NET ZERO GOAL STATUS OF NDC UPDATE

Norway Reduce GHG emissions at least

50% (and towards 55%) below 1990

levels by 2030

Carbon-neutral by 2050

(Parliamentary decision)

NDC updated in 2020;

target strengthened

Russia Limit GHG emissions to 70-75% of

1990 levels by 2030

NDC updated in 2020

Saudi Arabia “Actions and plans in pursuit of

economic diversification that have

co-benefits in the form of [GHG]

emission avoidances…”

NDC not updated

South Africa Emissions between 398 and 614

MtCO

by 2025 and 2030

Net zero by 2050

(Low Emission Development

Strategy)

update expected in 2021

South Korea Reduce GHG emissions 24.4%

below 2017 levels by 2030

Carbon-neutral by 2050 NDC updated in 2020

Switzerland Reduce GHGs emissions at least

50% below 1990 levels by 2030

Net zero by 2050

(Pledge of Federal Council)

NDC updated in 2020

Turkey Reduce emissions up to 21% below

BAU scenario by 2030

NDC not updated

United

Kingdom

Reduce GHG emissions at least

68%, below 1990 levels by 2030

Net zero by 2050

(UK law)

NDC updated in 2020;

target strengthened

United States Reduce GHG emissions 26%-28%

below 2005 levels in 2025

Net zero by 2050 (pledge) NDC not updated; update

expected in 2021

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

This appendix provides further detail on the underlying analytics for achieving a methane reduction target of 40%

below 2005 levels by 2030. The table below provides one potential breakdown of ambitious yet feasible methane

emission reductions in 2030 from the five largest methane-emitting sectors—oil and gas, enteric fermentation,

landfills, coal, and manure management —which are collectively responsible for more than 90% of current U.S.

methane emissions.

This illustrative pathway should not be taken as the only way to reach the 40% target; the

target can be reached in a number of ways depending on sectoral actions, and some sectors may overperform while

others underperform. Information on the methods, sources, and assumptions can be found in the Table notes. We

note that the level of reduction required for this target is also consistent with methane reduction commitments

proposed and adopted by the state of California (SB 1383—“achieve a reduction in the statewide emissions of

methane by 40 percent… below 2013 levels by 2030”

) and the U.S. Climate Alliance (“reduce [short-lived climate

pollutant] emissions in the U.S. Climate Alliance as a whole by 40-50 percent below current levels by 2030”

); when

calibrated to a 2005 baseline,

these two targets—if for methane only and nationwide—amount to a 38% and

34-45% reduction in methane, respectively. A reduction greater than 40% may also be possible with the further

development of emerging technologies and strategies for hard-to-abate sectors such as enteric fermentation, as well

as behavioral changes such as reduced waste.

Appendix C

Economy-Wide Methane Target Analytics & Assumptions

U.S. METHANE SECTORS

(top 5 responsible for >90%

of 2018 emissions)

2005 Emissions

MMt

Abatement Targets below

2005 by 2030 (%)

2030 Emissions (MMt)

Oil & Gas

11.5 66% 3.9

Enteric Fermentation

6.8 6% 5.7

Landlls

5.3 42% 3.1

Coal

2.9 60% 1.2

Manure Management

2.1 17% 1.3

Other

(e.g. Rice, Wastewater, Land Use,

Transport, Power)

2.5 0% 2.2

TOTAL

(MMt/yr) 31

40%

18.5

TOTAL

(CO

e100: GWP=28)

870 520

Emissions in 2018 based on U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2018. (2020) for all sectors but oil and gas. Oil and gas

emissions from methodology described in note (a), with emissions from distribution mains in the GHGI replaced with the value estimated by Weller et al. 2020

(Weller Z. D., S. P. Hamburg, and J. C. von Fischer. (2020) A national estimate of methane leakage from pipeline mains in natural gas local distribution systems.

Environmental Science & Technology, 54(14) 8958-8967. doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c00437).

California Senate Bill No. 1383: SB-1383 Short-lived climate pollutants: methane emissions: dairy and livestock: organic waste: landfills. https://leginfo.

legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1383

U.S. Climate Alliance, From SLCP Challenge to Action (2018) http://www.usclimatealliance.org/slcp-challenge-to-action

Converting targets requires emissions data for the baseline year. We use EPA (U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2018.

(2020)) for all sectors but oil and gas. Oil and gas emissions come from EDF modeling as outlined in note (a).

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

U.S. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2018. (2020)

Marchese A. J., T. L. Vaughn, D. J. Zimmerle, D. M. Martinez, L. L. Williams, A. L. Robinson, A L. Mitchell, R. Subramanian, D. S. Tkacik, J. R. Roscioli, and S. C. Herndon.

(2015) Methane emissions from United States Natural Gas Gathering and Processing. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(17) 10718-10727. doi:10.1021/acs.

est.5b02275

Zimmerle D. J., L. L. Williams, T. L. Vaughn, C. Quinn, R. Subramanian, G. P. Duggan, B. Wilson, J. D. Opsomer, A. J. Marchese, D. M. Martinez, and A. L. Robinson. (2015)

Environmental Science & Technology, 49(15) 9374-9383. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b01669

Alvarez R. A., D. Zavala-Araiza, D. R. Lyon, D. T. Allen, Z. R. Barkley, A. R. Brandt, K. J. Davis, et al. (2018) Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas

supply chain. Science, 361 (6398) 186-188. doi:10.1126/science.aar7204

International Energy Agency (IEA), “World Energy Outlook.” (IEA, 2017).

Alvarez ICF International, Economic Analysis of Methane Emission Reduction Opportunities in the U.S. Onshore Oil and Natural Gas Industries (2014), https://www.edf.org/

sites/default/files/methane_cost_curve_report.pdf

International Energy Agency (IEA), “World Energy Outlook.” (IEA, 2017).

Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), “A report from the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative.” (OGCI, 2018).

Feng X. and E. Kebreab. (2020) Net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from feed additive use in California dairy cattle. PLoS ONE, 15(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/

journal.pone.0234289

Dijkstra J., A. Bannink, J. France, E. Kebreab, and S. van Gastelen. (2018) Antimethanogenic effects of 3-nitrooxypropanol depend on supplementation dose, dietary fiber

content, and cattle type. Journal of Dairy Science 101(10) 9041-9047. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-14456.

Notes

2005 emissions levels are based on EPA’s 2020 Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI) for all sectors but oil and gas.

For oil

and gas estimates, total site-level production emissions are estimated based on reported site-based measurements at

433 sites in six production areas (Barnett Shale, Fayetteville Shale, Marcellus Shale [Southwest PA/WV], Uintah County,

Upper Green River Basin, and Weld County). Emission factors are correlated with yearly natural gas production and

used to calculate a national emission total. Gathering station emissions were estimated from Enverus/DrillingInfo

gas production and state-specific emission rates reported in Marchese et al., adjusted to better account for heavy-

tail emissions.

Nationwide processing emissions are based on Marchese et al. and the plant count from the GHGI.

Transmission & Storage emissions by source are taken from the GHGI, and an abnormal emissions category is added

using the Zimmerle et al. estimate of 200 Mg/station/yr.

Nationwide distribution emissions by source are taken

directly from the EPA GHGI for the relevant year, with one exception. For more details, please refer to Alvarez et al.

2018.

Using this methodology, oil and gas methane emissions are ~40% higher in 2005 than as estimated by EPA (8

MMt).

Oil and gas methane reductions are based on analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Deployment of

all technologically available emissions control measures (such as leak detection and repair, updating equipment,

and deploying vapor recovery units), combined with reduced natural gas demand as part of the U.S. decarbonization

goal, could reduce emissions by up to 75% below current levels, which amounts to a 66% reduction below 2005 levels.

EDF analysis finds that U.S. methane oil and gas emissions could be reduced 45% below 2012 levels by 2025 (which

equals 32% reduction below 2005 levels) by applying currently existing best-practice regulations to all localities. ICF

International

and IEA

have also found this level of reduction cost effective. This reduction level could be increased

up to 65% (57% cut relative to 2005) by deploying all the technological advances that exist with no exemptions.

Alongside the 50% total GHG target’s reliance on deep decarbonization of the energy sector which would reduce oil

and gas demand, and an extended goal out to 2030 as opposed to 2025 which allows more development and ramp up

time for abatement measures, a 75% reduction below current levels (72% relative to 2012 and 66% relative to 2005), is in

the realm of the possible. Further, major oil and gas companies recently made bold commitments to reduce upstream

leakage to 0.25% of production by 2025 with ambition to 0.2%

If all companies pursued and achieved these targets

globally, EDF calculates it would lead to an 85% reduction in oil and gas emissions relative to projected levels in 2030.

Using peer-reviewed evidence and system-level understanding of dairy and beef production in the United States, EDF

estimates that it will be economically and practically feasible to reduce cattle enteric emissions by 10% by providing

feed additives relative to current emissions (6% below 2005 levels). The most commonly researched additive (3-NOP)

reduces enteric emissions by 32% in dairy (Feng & Kebreab 2020, Fig 2)

and 22% in beef (Dijkstra et al. meta-analysis,

quoted in Feng & Kebreab 2020), but beef cows (responsible for 75% of current U.S. enteric fermentation emissions

based on EPA 2020 data) are on range or pasture during large parts of the year, and feed additives are not yet practical

for grazing animals -- especially those widely dispersed on low producing rangeland. However, it could be possible

to mix methane-reducing compounds into feed during winter months when these animals are fed hay or silage. We

estimate a high-range estimate of 20% enteric emission reductions for the possibility that feed additives could be

Recapturing U.S. Leadership on Climate: Setting an Ambitious and Credible Nationally Determined Contribution

provided to a larger portion of the cattle herd (Searchinger et al. 2019)

or that feed additives could be combined with

genetic improvement (breeding), feed processing, and improved herd productivity for greater impact (Ahmed et al.

2020;

Herrero et al. 2016).

The EPA suggests that 12% of landfill emissions (below 2030 no action baseline) can be reduced at no net cost,

with measures such as electricity generation with a reciprocating engine, gas turbine, combined heat and power, or

microturbine and landfill gas recovery for direct use.

This number rises to around 20% for low-cost options (Hoglund-

Isaksson et al. 2020).

Recent analyses also suggest that with limited improvement to technologies such as source

separation with recycling and treatment with energy recovery, as well as no landfills of organic waste, emissions can be

reduced by up to 80% below the 2030 baseline (Harmsen et al. 2020; Hoglund-Isaksson et al. 2020).

The EPA (2013) suggests that 10% of emissions (below 2030 no action baseline) can be reduced at no cost, such as

by deploying degasification for pipeline injection and power generation, and on-site use in coal drying. Both the EPA

(2013) and more recent analyses (Harmsen et al. 2020;

Hoglund-Isaksson et al. 2020) suggest that 60% of coal-related

emissions (below 2030 levels) can be reduced with existing technologies, including ventilation air methane (VAM)

oxidation with improved ventilation, pre-mining degasification, and open flaring. However, an ambitious reduction in

coal use will also substantially decline coal-related methane emissions.

Based on recent syntheses, EDF estimates that it will be economically feasible (at less than $100/t CO

e) to reduce

current livestock manure methane emission rates in the United States by 47%-50% (Pape et al. 2016;

Ahmed et al. 2020;

Fargione et al. 2018).

The main intervention is to cover liquid manure storage pits and lagoons, thus enabling the

capture of the methane produced in the anaerobic conditions. However, in consideration of the current trend to shift to

more anaerobic storage (increasing baseline), we consider a lower end reduction potential of 30% below current levels

(17% below 2005).

For context, total U.S. GHG emissions in 2005 are ~7000 MMt CO

e100/yr (EPA 2020 for all sectors by oil and gas; oil

and gas estimates from EDF data and modeling – see (a)). A 50% reduction below 2005 levels in 2030 would then equal

~3500 MMt CO

e100/yr.

Searchinger, T.D., R. Waite, C. Hanson, and J. Ranganathan. (2019) Creating a Sustainable Food Future: A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050.

World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. www.SustainableFoodFuture.org

Ahmed, J., E. Almeida, D. Aminetzah, N. Denis, K. Henderson, J. Katz, et al. (2020) Agriculture and climate change: Reducing emissions through improved farming

practices. McKinsey & Company, New York, NY. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/reducing-agriculture-emissions-through-improved-farming-

practices

Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Havlík, P. et al. (2016) Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nature Climate Change, 6 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1038/

nclimate2925

U.S. EPA. Global Mitigation of Non-CO

Greenhouse Gases: 2010-2030 (2013).

Höglund-Isaksson, L., A. Gómez-Sanabria, Z. Klimont, P. Rafaj, W. Schöpp, Technical potentials and costs for reducing global anthropogenic methane emissions in the 2050

timeframe–results from the GAINS model. Environmental Research Communications 2(2), p.025004 (2020).

M. Harmsen, D. P. van Vuuren, B. L. Bodirsky, J. Chateau, O. Durand-Lasserve, L. Drouet, O. Fricko, S. Fujimori, D. E. Gernaat, T. Hanaoka, J. Hilaire, The role of methane in

future climate strategies: mitigation potentials and climate impacts. Climatic Change, 24, 1-7 (2020).

Pape, D., J. Lewandrowski, R. Steele, D. Man, M. Riley-Gilbert, K. Moffroid, et al. (2016) Managing Agricultural Land for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation within the United States.

ICF International. Report prepared under USDA Contract No. AG-3144-D-14-0292. http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/mitigation.htm

Fargione J. E., S. Bassett, T. Boucher, S. D. Bridgham, R. T. Conant, S. C. Cook-Patton, P. W. Ellis, et al. (2018) Natural climate solutions for the United States. Science

Advances, 4(11). doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat1869