November 5th, 2008

The United States is the only large industrialized country that has not ratified the treaty, which commits nations to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). President Bush has said he supports reducing GHG emissions, but never submitted the treaty for ratification citing China’s reluctance to take stronger measures.

China’s emissions are mushrooming as it builds numerous coal plants and its total emissions now exceed those of the U.S., though its per capita GHG pollution is much lower than the U.S.

Like China, the U.S. must begin to vigorously and credibly address its own emissions, Ms. Hemley said, adding that a good beginning point for an Obama Administration would be to establish a federal cap-and-trade system, which places a price on pollution.

A cap-and-trade law would push a start button on the green economy, telling polluters that degrading the air carries a price and rewarding those who can find a better way, she explained.

Others also cited cap-and-trade as a clean slate measure that would absolve states of trying to find their own solutions and help kick the market into higher gear.

Once sworn in, Obama also could seize some low-hanging fruit, ignored by Bush.

The Clean Air Act is one tool already at his disposal. Environmentalists tried to employ the act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions but the Bush Administration fought that idea. But since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of climate advocates, it freed the Environmental Protection Agency to set GHG emissions standards.

“The new president can take early action on global warming by complying with the landmark Supreme Court case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, and begin the process of regulating carbon dioxide under the federal Clean Air Act,” said Trip Van Noppen, president of Earthjustice, a non-profit public interest law firm.

By doing that, the new president could grant California and over a dozen other states the permission they have asked for to mandate cleaner vehicles, Van Noppen explained.

Another popular idea, take an immediate two-pronged approach to greening the country by focusing on clean energy programs that generate jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time.

“When you’re doing energy policy, let’s marry that to climate policy. Let me give you an example — there’s a lot of talk about alternative fuels. Some fuels such as corn-based ethanol give you a little environmental impact, but not a lot benefit. Some, like second-generation alternative fuels like switch grass, get you a lot of benefit on the environmental side,” said James D. Marston, director of state climate initiatives for the Environmental Defense Fund and also head of the Texas regional office.

Another example would be retrofitting buildings to use less energy, which creates “green collar” jobs and reduces energy consumption, Marston said. Yet another approach would be to take a waste product and turn it into an energy producer, such as capturing steam emissions in a manufacturing plant and using them to generate electricity for the plant, he said.

Both Marston and Hemley noted that the U.S. has enough technical know-how to vastly reduce its energy use, right now. Add to that mix the technological advances that will come down the line, and the green future could be bright.

Marston cited a McKinsey and Co. consultant’s report that found a lot of unturned stones on the green front.

“They say that we can get to the reductions we need (80 percent emissions reduction compared to 1990 levels) by 2050 using today’s technologies, and that 40 percent of the strategies can come from existing technologies that also save us money right now,” he said.

“We firmly believe that investing in clean energy is a win-win. We can get people back to work and address climate change,” said Michael Oko, a spokesman for the NRDC.

Or, as Ms. Beinecke put it: “Come January, we will be granted a fleeting moment of opportunity — a matter of months — for turning environmental promise into legislative reality. We must strike swiftly if we are to defuse the twin crises of fossil fuel addiction and global warming — or the Earth we leave our grandchildren will be unimaginably different than the one we now know and love.”

(Harriet Blake in Boston contributed to this report.)

Related links:

• For more information see the Environmental Defense Fund’s “Lost Eight Years” timeline and its “Green Energy Agenda for 2009.”

Copyright © 2008 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Pages: 1 2