 |
|
From CQ Weekly, PETER HARKNESS Feeling the Heat As feds inch along on climate change, California is suing over clean air and mayors are pledging to slash emissions 
The politics of climate control are getting to be as intricate as the problem itself. Three governors — Republicans Jon Huntsman of Utah and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, and Democrat Brian Schweitzer of Montana — are appearing in television advertisements in 11 states in the next few weeks urging Congress to get off its duff and start leading on climate change. "Here's a novel concept for Congress," Schweitzer quips. "Do something, anything. Move!" Some day, in some way, the federal government finally will engage on the complex problem of climate change. But probably not anytime soon.
Last week a U.N. scientific committee — the group that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore — issued a plea for the world community to take quick and decisive action to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere because the globe is now on a course for "abrupt and irreversible climate changes and impacts." Just days earlier, after two years of waiting, California lost its patience and sued the feds, demanding that the EPA permit the state to start limiting auto emissions of greenhouse gases. Federal air pollution law already permits California to set its own clean air standards at higher than the national level — so long as the state can demonstrate its own "extraordinary and compelling conditions." This is the first time in 30 years that granting such a waiver has even been an issue. If California wins, at least 11 other states, probably more, are ready to quickly sign on to its standard, under which carbon dioxide emissions would start dropping in the 2009 models of new cars — and be reduced 30 percent by 2016. And deciding how much a state or region — if not the nation — will pledge to cut CO2 emissions relatively quickly is critical to mitigating the damage that is an inevitable result of rising temperatures. While California, because of its size and its special treatment under federal law, is taking the lead, most states aren't all that far behind. Regional agreements have been formed among states in virtually every region but the Southeast to cap carbon emissions and establish a system for trading emission credits. So most states are trying to set up their own structures for reducing emissions — fixing a goal and then working regionally to devise methods for meeting it, with the idea that climate change will play out differently in various areas of the country. In a way, though, the states are running behind many of their local governments — which have taken the lead on actually doing something about climate change other than fight with Washington. It makes sense, since about three-quarters of the world's energy consumption is attributed to urban areas. Now many of the country's larger cities — among them New York, Chicago, Seattle, Portland and Los Angeles — are informally competing to see who can be greenest. FOR LOCALITIES, A LACK OF CONTROL At last count, 728 mayors had signed something called the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement, which obligates their cities to achieve a 7 percent reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2012 — the target set by the Kyoto Protocol, the agreement among 140 nations that the Bush administration won't commit the United States to living under. The cities go on to pledge they'll cut emissions 80 percent by 2050 — the magnitude of reductions that scientists estimate must occur to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences from the warming of the globe. This is hard work for lots of reasons. Most cities don't have data on their emissions of 17 years ago. Only those that own the local electric utility can mandate emission reductions. And cities have no say in standards for the cars on their streets. But a number of mayors are pressing ahead as they can — switching their fleets to hybrids (all 13,000 New York taxis must convert by 2012), changing building codes to promote efficiency, planting trees (500,000 just in Chicago), sequestering methane gas from landfills, and so on. However, there is growing acknowledgement that all of these efforts will not be sufficient to avoid significant consequences from warming temperatures, consequences that will play out differently in every region of the country. So an increasing number of city and county governments — from Seattle/King County to Chicago to Boston to Miami/Dade — are making plans for how to adjust to rising sea levels, diminishing snow pack, damage to vegetation and other problems, even outbreaks of infectious diseases. It hasn't come down to mitigation vs. adaptation. Everyone agrees there must be both. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, the architect of the mayors' climate agreement, who recently won an award from Harvard's innovation in government program for his local initiative, understands the politics of the down-in-the-trenches effort against global warming: "If we can only get that first 7 percent," he says, "and not get thrown out of office for doing it." It's not a risk Washington seems willing to take. Recent columns: © 2007, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are registered trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc. |
THE STATES AND LOCALITIES