Trying to keep track of “cap and trade” legislation in Congress is not easy. The press recognizes cap and trade as one the Obama adminnistration’s top priorties — but the press doesn’t usually go in for details, especially on a bill that is moving through multiple committees. But apparently it has already divided Washington’s environmental lobbies. There is reportedly one set still pushing for it, but others have already that the bill is no longer desirable. Personnally, I have always been skeptical, because it appears to me that it is unlikely to go far enough. My concern is the idea that CO2 emissions should be curbed gradually, so as to be stabilized by 2050, was supportable when the conceptual foundations for this legislation were laid, but it is already a troubling concept. The fact is that CO2 is already at levels as high as any known to have existed for the last 600,000 years. The emissions that will occur over the next 40 years will add to the existing levels — CO2 is not going away as fast as it is being emissions. Capping emissions in itself is not going to forestall climate change, nor, in my opinion, can we confidently assert that the emissions goals that we have set will keep climate change within acceptable limits. We are plunging into the unknown, and the day may come when we will wish that in 2009 we had put the brakes on harder and sooner.
Whatever happens in the details of cap and trade, there are other things that Congress — and the states — should do. The goal of capping emissions from carbon-bearing facilities and vehicles is one thing — bringing down the costs of non-carbon alternatives is another, and facilititating the development of carbon-capture technology is a third. “Cap and trade” doesn’t directly further either of the latter two goals, but other steps would, including direct subsidies, but also including “renewable portfolio standards,” and government purchasing. Massachusetts is doing both of the latter, and will continue doing so even if federal cap and trade replaces the Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative. It strikes me that even if the “cap and trade” legislation ends up being less than perfect, there will still be more to hope for from Congress. So if this summer produces compromises, there will still be goals to push for. There may also be EPA proposals for regulations of automobiles.
All of which brings me to this question: what should local activists do? We are busy working with municipal agencies: schools, police stations, public housing, and public housing agencies — saving energy, installing PVC panels, and even, where possible, wind generators — saving money, spreading the word, but where will the melodrama of cap and legislation leave us? I have never felt strongly about reducing my personal carbon foot print — I’m not burning tons of coal. In other words, I don’t feel that these personal and local action are enough without change at the national level — change that affects the massive sources of coal-fired electricity, and the causes of mobile source emissions. What are the next steps?
Tags: CO2 reduction, Environment, legislation, Obama administration
