News > Politics > Western States Take Climate Policy Into Their Own Hands

commentary
MONDAY FEBRUARY 26 2007 7:00 PM

Western States Take Climate Policy Into Their Own Hands

Submitted by legionnaire

Edited by legionnaire

Tags: climate change, policy, West, states

The Bush administration (and unfortunately, much of the Clinton administration as well) has represented a period of mostly inactivity and sometimes dramatic reversals of earlier administration positions on protecting the environment. The US has thus far refused to participate in the Kyoto treaty that would establish target reduction levels of greenhouse gas emissions and has been reticent to enter into other international agreements focused on helping the environment, with a convenient excuse often read to go at the first hint of criticism. It seems that if the federal government can't do it, then perhaps it's up to the states to do something about it on their own. That's just what Arizona, New Mexico, California, Oregon and Washington State decided to do, agreeing to work together independent of the federal government to institute measures that would limit the production of greenhouse gases within their states.

"In the absence of meaningful federal action, it is up to the states to take action to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country," said Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat. "Western states are being particularly hard-hit by the effects of climate change."

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said a so-called cap-and-trade program, which lets companies that can't meet their emission reduction targets buy credits from those that reduce carbon dioxide, would provide "a powerful framework for developing a national cap-and-trade program. ... This agreement shows the power of states to lead our nation addressing climate change."

Let's not kid ourselves - there's certainly an element of grandstanding here that can't be ignored. Schwarzenegger in particular is a politician with his eye on bigger and better things. However, even if that is the case, the fact that these states are pursuing a framework similar to the already existent Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in place in Northeastern states means that a sizable fraction of the country's population could soon be living in states where the inaction of a presidential administration that could care less about the environment can still be thwarted, at least partly.

The cap-and-trade system being discussed by the Western states would set limits to the amount of pollution that companies could spew into the atmosphere each year, presumably with substantial financial penalties attached to violating those caps and incentives like tax breaks available to companies that come under their quotas. These systems have been criticized by environmentalists in the past for not establishing tough enough limits and for giving companies the right to essentially pay more to pollute, which a cost/benefit analysis may determine to be the cheaper option by the company.

While the proposed system is undoubtedly far from perfect, it's still considerably better than nothing, since that's what the federal government has thus far provided.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3

Comments

mqx

Seattle, WA

January 2003

FEB 26, 2007 07:28 PM

Yeah, but the federal government right now is pretty much Republican and (good) Republicans believe in small government and state rights. Now, the Bush admin have been the worst Republicans that I remember in my lifetime. But, by ignoring the climate issues, they've forced the states' hands and accidently did the most Republican thing since they took office.

MaitreSinge

Silver Spring, MD

June 2004

FEB 26, 2007 07:50 PM

Actually, I kind of agree with mQx above. If nothing else, it's nice to see the states leading in an issue, instead of the federal government just expanding its power.

Oskar

United Kingdom

February 2005

FEB 26, 2007 07:59 PM

Yay Democracy in action -_- People need to learn that the states have almost or just as much power as the federal goverment.

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

FEB 26, 2007 08:08 PM

I like the cap-and-trade system. One benefit I'd like to add to is the development of green technologies. Companies that undercut the quota would get tax cuts(and I suppose this is theoretical but it does abide the capitalistic principle) that could be used to further develop green technologies and thereby increase profits both by the sale of the technology and by further undercutting the quota. The initial profit comes from the sale of their credits to companies who can't make quota. I think it's a really good idea that only has positive outcome development of new technologies that the US can sell both in and out of the countries and the reduction of emissions.

And interesting corollary is an article I read in an environmental studies class, which basically showed that when companies sought new more environmentally friendly technologies they actually increased efficiency of their operations and thereby their profits. I wish I could cite it, but it's been awhile.

More to the point of the article, good job western states, way to take the initiative.

JekyllAndHyde

Austin, TX

April 2005

FEB 26, 2007 11:52 PM

Even though the cynic in me wonders about the veracity of the politcally-savvy Schwarzenegger's newfound environmental concerns, I can't deny the fact that he has at least made good on his campaign promise to actually give a shit about such issues. Genuine or no, kudos to him for taking some sort of initiative.

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ

April 2006

FEB 26, 2007 11:59 PM

id say that Environmentalists complain that the current accords aren't tough enough, eh? Does this mean they want more restrictions or simply more penaties for violators? Personally, I'd prefer the second option, make the cost of breaking the standards set so high that it would bankrupt the companies after maybe 3 violations. Don't use straight numbers either, use percentages, since not all companies make the same amounts.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

legionnaire

Belgium

November 2003

FEB 27, 2007 08:47 AM

MschfMayhemSoap said:
id say that Environmentalists complain that the current accords aren't tough enough, eh? Does this mean they want more restrictions or simply more penaties for violators? Personally, I'd prefer the second option, make the cost of breaking the standards set so high that it would bankrupt the companies after maybe 3 violations. Don't use straight numbers either, use percentages, since not all companies make the same amounts.

It's not so far fetched. Maybe not bankrupting companies after a few violations, but bringing penalties into amounts that companies will actually notice - hell the FCC is trying to do the same thing with media companies that allow actors to broadcast "dirty words," I'd say this is a little more serious and merits harsher penalties.

Also, public shaming can be a useful tool in compelling corporations. Companies essentially lack any ethics, they do what's best for the bottom line. If ignoring environmental laws and continuing to pollute is cheaper than paying fines then they'll pollute away. But couple those fines with conspicuous negative PR campaigns and the cost of continuing to do business that way skyrockets, it becomes more profitable for companies to follow the rules.

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

FEB 27, 2007 08:51 AM

Oskar said:
People need to learn that the states have almost or just as much power as the federal goverment.

Why would they need to learn something that's patently false?