I know everyone is supposed to be dour and disheartened about the prospects for climate policy right now. And while I can’t say that I’m thrilled with where we are, it’s useful to take stock of what’s happening because it’s not insignificant:
California. Next week, regulators are expected to approve a cap-and-trade program for the Golden State. It should be a slam dunk given that Proposition 23—the oil company funded gutting of the state’s climate laws—got hammered at the ballot box. And now, new poll results from the Field Research Corp show that fully 64 percent of the California’s registered voters support cap and trade.
British Columbia. Provincial authorities are moving full speed ahead with a BC cap-and-trade program that will become operational on January 1, 2012. The province will blend that program with the existing carbon tax, setting the state for BC to beceom the world leader in smart, comprehensive carbon pricing. (Matt Horne at the Pembina Institute has out a new thoughtful set of recommendations for the province’s carbon programs.)
New Mexico. Earlier this week, the state’s Environmental Improvement Board voted 4-to-1 in support of a carbon cap-and-trade program that will reduce state emissions by 3 percent annually from 2013 to 2020. That vote was a follow-up and backstop to a vote taken on election day that authorized New Mexico to join the Western Climate Initiative.
Western Climate Initiative. Despite setbacks in some key states like Oregon and Washington, WCI is plugging along. That’s thanks in large part to leadership in California, British Columbia, and New Mexico. Other WCI partners are also moving foward, including Manitoba (the province is seeking public consultation now on plans to implement a cap and trade program), as well as Ontario and Quebec.
RGGI. The 10-state regional program in the northeast US continues to operate an efficient and inexpensive carbon cap-and-trade program on the power sector that generates much-needed revenue for energy efficiency and weatherization (and, in a few cases, state budget shortfalls). Now that RGGI has proved carbon cap-and-trade works well, the next step is to begin ratcheting down the cap faster.
In the Northwest, however, the states that pride themselves on environmental leadership are still sitting on their hands. Washington’s leaders appear to be showing no interest in seeking legislative authority to join WCI’s cap-and-trade program. It’s the same story in Oregon, where returning governor Kitzhaber has a real opportunity to make a bipartisan case for moving the state forward. If Oregon moves, that would makeWashington the sole West Coast laggard, which might well be enough to prompt further action in the Evergreen State.
It would be better for all—for industry, the public, and the climate—if North America had a single, coherent, and comprehensive carbon program. But even without a common climate currency, there’s every reason to believe that a patchwork of state and regional programs can make a real difference. And perhaps most importantly, local leadership exerts political force on the national leaders in Ottowa and DC who have so far shirked their responsibilities.
Bob
If you call the minimum price allowed by law for RGGI auction prices a success back away from the calculator! This fraud is going down. Plus the states are raiding the cookie jar for general needs as opposed to investing in energy saving as the law demands. Watch for NJ to pull out of the RGGI once Gov. Christie revs up his presidential campaign. Don’t let me ruin your green dream with a dose of reality!
Eric de Place
Bob,The price is low in RGGI because emissions are staying under the cap easily; that’s why I recommend tightening the cap up now. What RGGI shows—very clearly—is that regional carbon cap and trade works just as smoothly and efficiently as the other cap-and-trade programs we’ve used for air pollutants. As for “raiding the cookie jar,” I have an awfully difficult time seeing why it’s so terrible to put a price and carbon pollution and use the revenue to pay for schools, cops, social services, and the rest of the stuff paid for by state general funds. Sounds like a fine idea to me.
Jason L.
Not sure what sort of “real difference” the author of this article means. If he means that the post California Cap and Tax proposal difference is that no new industries are going to try to move into or expand in California and some more carbon dependant will move out of state and take the jobs with them, then he’s probably right. If he means that the planet is going to give a rip, then pretty much no…There has been no global warming for at least 10 years (As admitted by nearly ALL global warming nut job scientists sucking off of the government grant teet…) Everyone else knew that 10 years ago… Solar Cycles, Natural CO2 Sources, Ocean Currents etc. are where the vast majority of the natural variation in the climate cycle comes from. CO2 emissions from manmade sources make up the tiniest pin prick of even just the general rise in CO2 levels (mostly from natural sources)… These idiots are the next group in a proud tradition of getting their panties all in a bunch every time the weather changes for a few years. 30 years ago “the ice age commeth” was all the rage because we were in a climate super-cycle headed the other direction (which we may very well be headed into right now…)But who cares anyway, THANK GOD for the last 10,000 years of the globe generally headed in the warming direction or we’d be under a thousand feet of ice in the Seattle area…