Right now officials from around the world are meeting in Montreal for a new round of negotiations on common measures to address global climate change. Yet the world's largest economy and most powerful nation will be represented only by "observers," thanks to the Bush administration's go-it-alone attitude on this issue. You don't have to like the Kyoto Protocol signed by the Montreal attendees to understand America has to get involved in the broader effort towards addressing this challenge.
But there's growing pressure in Congress, even among Republicans, to get serious about climate change. A bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate has now agreed that human-induced climate change is real and that "mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere." On June 22, 2005, the Senate went on Record for the first time in support of mandatory limits on greenhouse gases by a vote of 53-44. And just yesterday, a bipartisan group of 24 Senators urged the administration to get off the sidelines and back in the game on meaningful international efforts to curb emissions that are heating up the world's oceans and wreaking potential havoc with the planet's climate.
This slow but steady sea-change has been prompted in part by this year's apocalyptic hurricane season, which reinforced scientific evidence that rising water temperatures are contributing to more violent weather, and in part because of the implications for American businesses. Some, such as the insurance industry, see huge costs on the horizon, as weather damage, pollution, industrial and agricultural losses, and other expenses mount. Others are beginning to realize that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are creating a vast new global market for clean energy technologies, and they want in on the action.
Ironically, it was the president himself who helped set the stage for legislative action when, at the last G-8 summit in Scotland, he finally conceded that "the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem."
What's has been lacking, though, is a legislative vehicle and a political strategy to turn the change of opinion into immediate action. But this week, the Progressive Policy Institute released an important new paper by Jan Mazurek providing a road-map forward that can break the logjam in Washington and get the United States off the sidelines on climate change.
Up until now, the administration and most congressional Republicans have supported the president's so-called "Clear Skies" proposal, which is limited to the utility sector, and deals only with gases that cause smog and acid rain, not climate change. To deal with emissions of the most important "greenhouse gas" -- carbon dioxide -- Bush has proposed only voluntary initiatives. Meanwhile, most Democrats have supported the Lieberman-McCain legislation aimed at creating an economy-wide "cap-and-trade" system that limits carbon emissions but lets producers buy and sell "allowances" within the "cap."
While noting that an economy-wide cap-and-trade system should remain the goal, Mazurek suggests that a bipartisan proposal sponsored by Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) could serve as an important first step. It adopts the utilities-only scope of Clear Skies but addresses its main shortcoming by adding a cap on carbon dioxide. This approach could attract both moderate Republican and business-community support, without in any way compromising the long-term progressive effort to take broader action on greenhouse gases (though vigilance should be exercised to make sure the administration doesn't embrace the idea and pull off a "bait-and-switch" maneuver to strip out the carbon cap and turn Carper-Chafee back into "Clear Skies"). That's especially true now that the administration's own Environmental Protection Agency has issued cost estimates undermining the White House's argument that Carper-Chafee is too expensive.
Indeed, says Mazurek, providing a short-term but meaningful step toward greenhouse gas reductions could mobilize the growing ranks of environmentally conscious conservatives, most notably religious conservatives, who have been raising voices against the administration's head-in-the-sand position, and need a practical vehicle for making common cause with Democrats and environmentalists generally.
Aside from outlining this short-term strategy for action on greenhouse gases, Mazurek's report lays out a long-range strategy as well. This includes an extended analysis of the steps required to ensure that an economy-wide cap-and-trade system is successful, especially in terms of mitigating the price impact on cleaner-burning fuels such as natural gas by investing in a diverse array of other energy sources, from nuclear power to biofuels.
Ultimately, the hot winds of calamity from the Caribbean and the bracing winds of change from Montreal blow in the same direction: it's time to get moving on greenhouse gases and climate change. As Mazurek concludes: "Now is the time for progressives and moderate Republicans to cap carbon dioxide. Identifying and refining areas on which lawmakers can agree will help to ensure they are ready when the president is finally willing to deal seriously with a problem most experts agree is the greatest environmental challenge of the 21st century."
