Play Ball - US Needs to Join the Team!
At a holiday party last weekend, my three-year old was playing baseball. Not a particularly noteworthy afternoon – except that the bat was emblazoned with the American flag. And the ball was an inflatable globe. My husband declared that this was yet one more example of our boy's genius and precocious insight. My son was not merely playing ball – he was commenting on our nation's climate policy. And he hit a homerun.
Earlier this month, more than 10,000 people, including representatives of over 180 countries, met in Bali, Indonesia to formulate an international response to climate change. The conference culminated in the adoption of the Bali roadmap, which provides the first step for an international agreement to go into effect when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.
True to form, the US challenged global efforts to incorporate firm emission reductions in the final document. The delegates had enough. At one point, as the US insisted on provisions that would've derailed an agreement, a delegate from Papua New Guinea leaned into his microphone and declared that if the US was not willing to lead it should "at least get out of the way." The Papua New Guinea delegate was not alone. The entire room of high-level ministers – otherwise very courteous dignitaries – actually booed US Undersecretary of State (the top US official at the meeting) for nearly a minute.
Thankfully, the US did get out of the way in Bali. Indeed, though the agreement is not as strong as it could be, it nonetheless provides a starting point for future negotiations. The United States eventually relented and agreed to language without specific limits on global warming. Though the Bali agreement does not include any specific numeric emission reduction targets, it does acknowledge the need for measurable, reportable, and verifiable mitigation “actions" and "commitments." Critically, the final agreement recognizes the importance of mitigation, adaptation, financing, and technology in responding to climate change. These initial agreements can pave the way for a firmer commitment when the delegation reconvenes in Denmark in 2009, after the next election.
Unfortunately, the Bali concession did not mark a sea change in our country's response to climate change. Days after the US agreed to "get out of the way" in Bali, our leaders were at it again. Last Thursday, the US Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency denied California’s petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. California had sought to establish stronger emissions standards for cars and trucks sold in the state. This is not a novel request. The Clean Air Act explicitly allows California to adopt its own standards. And the federal government has granted similar requests fifty times since 1968. The last time it denied a request was in 1975.
California had first requested the waiver in 2005. It is set to take effect for vehicles manufactured in 2009. After two years of silence from Washington, California sued EPA and demanded a response. EPA finally responded last Thursday – justifying its denial of the waiver because it claimed the new Energy Bill (also signed into law last week) was stronger than California's limits. This is simply not true. Admittedly, the Energy Bill makes tremendous strides. It improves our national fuel economy standards for the first time in more than thirty years. However, the California standard was more protective. It demanded reductions to kick in by 2016. It also explicitly addressed carbon dioxide emissions – which are not limited in the Energy Bill. If the California standard was adopted by California – and the sixteen other states that have promised to embrace it – emissions would be reduced by 100 million metric tons in 2020.
Californians aren't prepared to back down. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has already pledged to sue to overturn the EPA decision. In the past three months, federal judges in Vermont and California have already ruled twice against automakers’ attempts to block state tailpipe reductions for greenhouse gases. Even EPA’s own lawyers seem to doubt the Administrator's final decision. In an agency presentation, aides wrote that if Johnson denied the waiver and California sued, EPA is likely to lose in court.
There is virtual scientific consensus that climate change is happening. The evidence is already here. Eleven of the last twelve years rank among the warmest years in global surface temperature since 1850. Scientists caution that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 60 to 80 percent from current levels to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change.
Perhaps my husband was right and my three-year old was onto something. We're in the bottom of the ninth – and it's time for the United States to "lead, follow, or get out of the way."
