Jump to content

Nine states break with Bush on greenhouse gases


Recommended Posts

Thursday, August 25, 2005; Posted: 9:49 a.m. EDT (13:49 GMT)

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Nine northeastern U.S. states are working on a plan to cap and then reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, the first U.S. deal of its kind and one which would see the region breaking with President George W. Bush who refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol

The move comes as California, Washington and Oregon are considering a similar pact -- a dynamic environmentalists say could pressure the federal government to adopt a national law. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, the greenhouse gas reduction plan adopted by more than 150 countries.

Under the plan being worked on, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont would cap carbon dioxide emissions at 150 million tons a year -- roughly equal to the average emissions in the highest three years between 2000 and 2004.

Starting in 2015, the cap would be lowered, and emissions would be cut by 10 percent in 2020.

Each state legislature would have to approve the caps, said Dennis Schain, a spokesman for Connecticut's Department of Environmental Protection.

"This is a process that would be an agreement among states and to really implement it and have a firm commitment, the states will each have to approve legislation and regulations to meet these conditions," he told Reuters.

The draft is being circulated among industries, power companies and environmental groups for feedback, he said. The group hopes to reach a final agreement in September.

Phil Cherry, policy director at Delaware's Department of Natural Resources, also confirmed details of the pact.

Many scientists believe carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases cause global warming that is affecting coastal areas, icebergs and wildlife. Around 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions come from fossil fuel power plants.

The United States is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide. The Bush administration wants cuts to be voluntary and resists mandatory measures it says would hurt economic growth.

Many international leaders have criticized Bush's refusal to sign Kyoto, which is meant as a first step toward braking a rise in global temperatures from a build-up of gases from fossil fuels emitted by power plants, factories and cars.

In the absence of national control on emissions, Schain said: "This seems to be the appropriate course of action."

The so-called Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative would explore a market-driven cap-and-trade system where businesses must trim emissions under set limits or buy credits from companies that have complied with the limits.

Environmentalists praised the proposed plan.

"It moves the United States further toward doing something about the problem," said Kert Davies of Greenpeace in Washington, D.C. "That eventually allows us back into the global solving of this problem."

The deal was brokered by New York Republican Gov. George Pataki, who is weighing a White House run in 2008.

Pataki spokesman Andrew Rush said no final deal had been reached but, "We've made a lot of progress and we look forward to reaching a final agreement."

Political experts note such a plan brings Pataki national attention. "This is another clear signal that George Pataki is positioning himself on the national stage to run for president," political strategist Hank Sheinkopf said.

A regional emissions control program would likely cause higher energy prices for power company customers in the Northeast, but Delaware's Cherry said the states had not yet decided on a method to combat rising costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United States is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide. The Bush administration wants cuts to be voluntary and resists mandatory measures it says would hurt economic growth.

There's that good ol' "economic growth" line again. Sheesh! How large can you grow until you're too big for your britches? Mr. Bush?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole "It'll limit economic growth!" argument misses one important aspect: requiring more environmentally-friendly systems can also stimulate the economy, by promoting development of newer, more efficient, systems. The only downside is the inertia inherent in the establishment, because the newer systems will be developed by new companies (and new economies*), and the existing ones will be hurt by it.



* Witness the growth of the Japanese auto industry in the early 1970s, which came at the expense of the American auto industry, which was slow to move to production of more fuel-efficient cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...