06-08-2005, 10:05 AM
The latest New Scientist editorial... (4 June)
It pays to be green
Action on climate change could come from an unexpected quarter
GEORGE BUSH must be bemused. He takes the heat on the international stage by shielding US industry from limits on greenhouse gas emissions and what does he get in return? Domestic grief.
There is a grass-roots rebellion in the US in which cities, states and even large corporations are demanding the emissions be restricted. In recent weeks, more than 150 cities across the country have signed a pledge to meet Kyoto-style targets. Many states are joining in. In New England and the Pacific North-West they are forming clubs, based around regional electricity grids, to cut emissions from power plants and set up emissions permit trading systems similar to the market launched in Europe in January. This is good news. As nations begin to negotiate how to cap emissions after the Kyoto protocol runs out in 2012, there is every sign that large parts of the US are ready to join in.
What had happened? Well, at the grass-roots level it is no big deal. Urban America already has a well-developed agenda for busting city smogs. Many city halls see cutting greenhouse gas emissions as the next natural step. Their problem is that, while they can innovate and distribute financial carrots to those willing to invest in cleaner technologies, they lack the regulatory sticks to impose national rules.
In corporate America, Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of General Electric, is the latest in a string of industry leaders to call for domestic controls on carbon dioxide emissions. They have seen the evidence of climate change and realise that severe cuts are inevitable within the lifetime of their investment decisions, even if not of electoral politics. They know from their in-house experts that cuts are achievable and affordable, and that new, greener products can be displayed in showrooms. They know from their rivals in Europe that tightening domestic emissions standards is stimulating innovation and investment in a way they can only dream of.
Many US corporations also believe they can make a killing in the burgeoning carbon trading system, where European corporations already have a head start. But to be in the market, they need something to trade. And if President Bush does not issue emissions permits, they have nothing to trade.
In many ways, events today mirror those almost two decades ago*, when the big producers of CFCs, who for years denied their products were destroying the ozone layer, decided after all that a CFC ban could generate a new market in substitutes that they were well placed to exploit. The signs, we fervently hope, are that US companies are approaching a similar tipping point in the climate debate.
If the corporate and civic rebellion over climate policy can finally win over the White House, the world will at least be back to where we all thought we were one bright morning in Kyoto in 1997.
* In fact the USA was one of the first countries, back in 1978 (nearly a decade ahead of Britain!), to ban CFCs in aerosol sprays. Not the first country - that honour goes to miljövänlig Sweden.
Is anyone going to nominate Jimmy Carter as an honorary Aspie?!
It pays to be green
Action on climate change could come from an unexpected quarter
GEORGE BUSH must be bemused. He takes the heat on the international stage by shielding US industry from limits on greenhouse gas emissions and what does he get in return? Domestic grief.
There is a grass-roots rebellion in the US in which cities, states and even large corporations are demanding the emissions be restricted. In recent weeks, more than 150 cities across the country have signed a pledge to meet Kyoto-style targets. Many states are joining in. In New England and the Pacific North-West they are forming clubs, based around regional electricity grids, to cut emissions from power plants and set up emissions permit trading systems similar to the market launched in Europe in January. This is good news. As nations begin to negotiate how to cap emissions after the Kyoto protocol runs out in 2012, there is every sign that large parts of the US are ready to join in.
What had happened? Well, at the grass-roots level it is no big deal. Urban America already has a well-developed agenda for busting city smogs. Many city halls see cutting greenhouse gas emissions as the next natural step. Their problem is that, while they can innovate and distribute financial carrots to those willing to invest in cleaner technologies, they lack the regulatory sticks to impose national rules.
In corporate America, Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of General Electric, is the latest in a string of industry leaders to call for domestic controls on carbon dioxide emissions. They have seen the evidence of climate change and realise that severe cuts are inevitable within the lifetime of their investment decisions, even if not of electoral politics. They know from their in-house experts that cuts are achievable and affordable, and that new, greener products can be displayed in showrooms. They know from their rivals in Europe that tightening domestic emissions standards is stimulating innovation and investment in a way they can only dream of.
Many US corporations also believe they can make a killing in the burgeoning carbon trading system, where European corporations already have a head start. But to be in the market, they need something to trade. And if President Bush does not issue emissions permits, they have nothing to trade.
In many ways, events today mirror those almost two decades ago*, when the big producers of CFCs, who for years denied their products were destroying the ozone layer, decided after all that a CFC ban could generate a new market in substitutes that they were well placed to exploit. The signs, we fervently hope, are that US companies are approaching a similar tipping point in the climate debate.
If the corporate and civic rebellion over climate policy can finally win over the White House, the world will at least be back to where we all thought we were one bright morning in Kyoto in 1997.
* In fact the USA was one of the first countries, back in 1978 (nearly a decade ahead of Britain!), to ban CFCs in aerosol sprays. Not the first country - that honour goes to miljövänlig Sweden.
Is anyone going to nominate Jimmy Carter as an honorary Aspie?!
