U.S. States & Regions
States and regions across the country are adopting climate policies, including the development of regional greenhouse gas reduction markets, the creation of state and local climate action and adaptation plans, and increasing renewable energy generation. Read More
On November 4 and 5, 2003, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, under a grant from the Joyce Foundation, held a workshop in Chicago, IL, on State Policy Solutions to Climate Change. This workshop brought together state officials from Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. State agencies represented included Agriculture, Commerce, Natural Resources, Environmental Protection, Administration, Energy, and Transportation. The purpose of the workshop was to have state officials share their experiences in implementing programs that reduce greenhouse gases and to reflect on the lessons learned.
The governors of the three Pacific states announced September 22, 2003, that they would work together to develop policies that address climate change. Governors Ted Kulongoski of Oregon, Gray Davis of California, and Gary Locke of Washington have directed their staffs to cooperate during the next year to arrive at policy recommendations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The recommendations, which are to be presented to the governors no later than September 1, 2004, will address ways that the three states can work together to obtain fuel efficient vehicles, reduce emissions from diesel fuel, encourage renewable energy production, implement uniform efficiency standards, and develop coordinated greenhouse gas emission inventories, protocols for reporting, and accounting methods for greenhouse gas emissions. "Our current federal policies will not lead to a reduction in emissions of the greenhouse gasses associated with climate change," said Governor Locke. "The governors of the West Coast states have concluded that in the absence of meaningful federal action, we must act individually and regionally to address the sources of global warming".
General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, and Isuzu announced August 12, 2003, that they had reached a settlement with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) regarding California's 1990 zero emission vehicle legislation. The companies agreed to drop their lawsuit in exchange for modifications made to the rule. The adapted rule gives companies two choices for meeting their ZEV requirements. The first option is to sell a mix of zero emission vehicles, hybrid-electric vehicles, and extremely clean gasoline-powered vehicles, adding up to ten percent of total vehicles sales. Instead of fulfilling the zero-emission portion of that mix, automakers may choose to produce a certain number of fuel cell vehicles, beginning with a sales-weighted market share of 250 fuel cell vehicles in 2008 and rising gradually to reach 50,000 vehicles in 2015.
Governors from ten Northeast states announced July 24, 2003, that they would join together in a regional strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. New York's Governor Pataki sent out letters in April to the governors from ten other Northeast states requesting their participation in the development of a regional cap-and-trade program. The governors from Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey responded with interest in working with New York. Maryland declined to participate now, but may join discussions later.
On June 26, 2003, Connecticut Governor John Rowland signed legislation amending the state's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Connecticut's RPS defines two categories of renewable energy, Class I and Class II, and sets separate requirements for both classes. Under the amended law, Class I includes wind, solar PV, fuel cells, methane gas from landfills, ocean thermal power, wave or tidal power, and some hydropower and biomass. Hydropower facilities that began operation before July 1, 2003 or have a capacity of 5 MW or more are no longer eligible for Class I requirements, which are set at 1 percent in 2004, rising to 7 percent by 2010. Class II includes municipal solid waste facilities, along with certain hydropower and biomass facilities that do not qualify under Class I. Class II requirements are set at 3 percent from 2004 through 2010. Under the previous RPS, renewable requirements applied only to competitive electric suppliers; the new RPS extends the requirements to utilities, which serve the majority of Connecticut's customers.
North Carolina's Division of Air Quality (DAQ) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has released the first of a series of three reports assessing the impact of North Carolina's Clean Smokestack's Act (CSA) on carbon dioxide emissions. The report is in fulfillment of requirements of the Clean Smokestacks Act, passed and signed by Governor Mike Easley in June of 2002. The Act is focused primarily on putting stringent controls for SO2 and NOx on the state's 14 major coal-fired power plants. However, Sections 12 and 13 of this Act require the DAQ to study the effects of these controls on CO2 and mercury and what the added costs and benefits would be to further reduce these pollutants from additional controls on coal-fired power plants and other stationary sources. The reports are required each September for 2003, 2004 and 2005, for each pollutant. The current report, primarily pulled from existing references and reports, makes substantial observations and conclusions, but no recommendations at this time. The report presents a policy background on the issue, details emissions from North Carolina sources, and lists some options for reducing carbon emissions and increasing carbon sequestration.
Greenhouse & Statehouse: The Evolving State Government Role in Climate Change
Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Barry G. Rabe, University of Michigan
The current level of state activity surrounding the issue of climate change is striking. Measures that have proven controversial at the federal level, such as renewable portfolio standards and mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, have been implemented at the state level, often with little dissent.
In this report, author Barry Rabe of the University of Michigan describes a diverse array of state initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Based on case studies of nine states - Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin - the report identifies the strengths as well as the limitations of these state-level initiatives, some of which could serve as prototypes for federal programs.
A number of themes emerged from the case studies. Foremost among these is that there are multiple drivers that influence states to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and states derive multiple benefits from doing so. New Jersey, for example, views climate change explicitly and comprehensively, and has integrated all sectors of the economy into programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Conversely, Texas passed an ambitious renewable portfolio standard primarily out of a desire to ensure long-term energy security for its residents, to secure its position as an "energy state," and to take advantage of increasing opportunities in renewable energy.
Indeed, state climate change efforts illustrate that climate change can be a bipartisan issue, an economic development opportunity, and an opportunity for policy entrepreneurship. But state action is not a substitute for a comprehensive national or international approach. A number of factors limit the ability of states to address climate change, including the reluctance of some states to deal with the issue, constitutional limits to their engagement in international relations, limited funding, and potential inefficiencies if states address climate change in different, incompatible ways. Rather, state leadership is getting the United States started down the path of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing learning opportunities for policy-makers. We would do well to be mindful of their successes as we work toward federal and international programs, and actively involve states in their design and implementation.
The Center and the author wish to thank Tom Arrandale, Bill Becker of STAPPA-ALAPCO, John Dernbach of Widener Law School, David Terry of NASEO, Michael Winka, Athena Sarafides, Philip Mundo, Caroline Garber, Eric Mosher, Joanne Morin, Dana Runestad, Alex Belinky, Matthew Weinbaum, and John Shea for their comments on a previous draft of this report.
Most analysis of policy options to address global climate change has focused on national and international levels of governance. Even within the United States, most scholars and journalists have concentrated on federal government capacity to engage in international negotiations and formulate nation-wide policies. This emphasis has tended to overshadow a remarkably - and increasingly - active process of policy formulation evident in the American states. This report is intended to provide an overview of this aspect of American climate change policy, considering recent trends and highlighting a range of case studies that cut across traditional policy sectors.
States have been formulating climate change policy for more than a decade, although their efforts have expanded and intensified in the past several years. In some cases, states have considered climate change mitigation explicitly while in others it has been an incidental benefit. Reflective of the vast scope of activity that generates greenhouse gases, state policies have been enacted that reduce these emissions in such areas as promotion of renewable energy, air pollution control, agriculture and forestry, waste management, transportation, and energy development, among others. In almost all cases, there have been multiple drivers behind and multiple benefits from these state policies. In Texas, for example, the desire for energy independence, economic development, and air pollution control drove the state to promote renewable energy. Not all states have demonstrated interest in these initiatives and some legislatures have taken steps to prevent state agencies from pursuing any efforts that are designed to reduce greenhouse gases. Nonetheless, there has been a remarkable increase and diversification of state policies since the late 1990s, reflected in their current operation in every region of the country. Collectively, they constitute a diverse set of policy innovations rich with lessons for the next generation of American climate change policy.
Much of this report is devoted to an examination of leading examples of innovation in various sectors, from renewable energy efforts in Texas to a cross-cutting approach in New Jersey. Nine case studies are presented in particular depth, followed by supplemental cases where appropriate. These cases tend to vary markedly from one another in detail and yet are linked by common design characteristics. First, they tend to have been supported through broad, bipartisan coalitions that received significant support from diverse stakeholders. State climate change policies have been signed into law by Governors who are Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Second, they regularly have viewed climate change mitigation as an economic development opportunity. State policies have been crafted to foster long-term economic well-being, which has contributed to their broad base of support. Third, they reflect abundant state-level opportunities for innovation and policy entrepreneurship, often involving state officials who build coalitions around a particular idea for new policy. Many of the most effective entrepreneurs are not particularly well known outside their respective states but have helped redefine climate change policy with their efforts.
When viewed as a collection of efforts, these initiatives outline possible elements of a long-term climate change strategy for the United States. Diffusion of innovation from one state to others is already occurring and clusters of contiguous states are beginning to consider cooperative efforts. Some of these policies may also serve as models that warrant emulation by the federal government in developing a more comprehensive strategy for the nation. This is entirely consistent with the long-standing tradition in American governance whereby states serve as laboratories for subsequent federal policy. In turn, the vigorous and creative nature of state innovation in this area suggests that any future federal policy initiatives on global climate change consider carefully the significant roles that state governments may be able to play in achieving long-term reduction of greenhouse gases.
For Immediate Release:
January 29, 2002
Contact: Katie Mandes
Climate Change Threatens Health of America's Lakes, Streams, Rivers and Wetlands
Washington, DC - Global climate change poses a serious threat to lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands throughout the United States, according to a new report from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. The temperature increases and variations in weather patterns projected for the next 100 years will result in changes in the geographic distribution of freshwater fish, interfere with the reproduction of many aquatic species, reduce water quality, and impose added stresses on wetlands and other sensitive aquatic ecosystems.
"The United States' freshwater and wetland ecosystems face multiple threats to their health and stability, including changes in land use, environmental pollution, and the diversion of water for drinking, irrigation, and other uses," said Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "To these threats we must now add the very real and very serious effects of global climate change and its potential to transform the essential character of our lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands."
The Pew Center report, Aquatic Ecosystems and Climate Change: Potential Impacts on Inland Freshwater and Coastal Wetland Ecosystems in the United States, draws on a variety of sources to summarize researchers' current understanding of the potential impacts of climate change on U.S. aquatic ecosystems. Among the report's key conclusions:
- Increases in water temperatures as a result of climate change will alter the geographic distribution of aquatic plant and animal species. The severity of these impacts may be limited if species can migrate to new areas as climate changes. However, the ability of species to migrate may be compromised by human activities that block migration corridors, potentially causing reductions in biodiversity.
- Changes in precipitation will alter river and streamflows affecting ecosystem productivity and reducing water quality. Populations of aquatic organisms are sensitive to the effects of floods, droughts and other extreme weather events, which are likely to increase as a result of climate change.
- Climate change is likely to further stress sensitive freshwater and coastal wetlands. Wetlands throughout the United States already are adversely affected by a variety of human impacts. Climate change will add to the existing stresses on these fragile ecosystems in a variety of ways-most notably by causing global sea levels to rise and inundate coastal wetlands. Rising global temperatures also will cause the wetland areas of Alaska and Canada to release additional carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
- Aquatic ecosystems have a limited ability to adapt to climate change. Governments, communities, businesses, and individual citizens can take a number of steps to reduce the likelihood of significant impacts to these systems while improving their ability to adapt to climate change. These include: maintaining riparian forests; reducing pollution from a variety of sources; restoring damaged ecosystems; minimizing groundwater withdrawal; and strategically placing new reservoirs to minimize their ecological impacts.
"Our rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands support economically important fisheries and provide Americans with clean drinking water, water for irrigation, recreational opportunities, and more," said Claussen. "This report shows that climate change puts all of these services at risk, but it also shows there are things we can do to reduce that risk."
Part of "Environmental Impacts" Series
Aquatic Ecosystems and Global Climate Change was prepared for the Pew Center by N. LeRoy Poff, Mark M Brinson, and John W. Day, Jr. It is the seventh in a series of Pew Center reports examining the potential impacts of climate change on the U.S. environment. Other Pew Center series focus on domestic and international policy issues, climate change solutions, and the economics of climate change. A complete copy of this report -- and previous Pew Center reports -- is available on the Pew Center's web site, www.c2es.org.
The Pew Center was established in May 1998 by the Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the United States' largest philanthropies and an influential voice in efforts to improve the quality of the environment. The Pew Center is conducting studies, launching public education efforts and working with businesses to develop market-oriented solutions to reduce greenhouse gases. The Pew Center is led by Eileen Claussen, the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. The Pew Center includes the Business Environmental Leadership Council, which is composed of 36 major, largely Fortune 500 corporations all working with the Pew Center to address issues related to climate change. The companies do not contribute financially to the Pew Center - it is solely supported by contributions from charitable foundations.
Community Adjustment to Climate Change Policy
Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Judith M. Greenwald, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Brandon Roberts, Brandon Roberts & Associates
Andrew D. Reamer, Andrew Reamer & Associates
Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
A Pew Center report series on the economics of climate change has identified many ways in which economic modeling can be improved to more reliably project the costs of greenhouse gas reduction policies. These studies show that better model design – for instance, more realistically portraying technological progress and flexibility in the economy – can yield substantially lower projections for the costs of addressing climate change. They provide strong evidence that a rational climate policy that sets realistic short-, medium-, and long-term goals can achieve significant environmental gains while minimizing economic costs.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that the costs of addressing climate change are likely to fall disproportionately on certain industries, communities, and workers, and to explore ways to minimize these adverse impacts. This report is one of three focusing of these critical transition issues. It draws from past community assistance efforts to recommend ways the government can best assist communities that may suffer economic disruption as a result of climate change policies. A report released simultaneously looks at potential impacts on American workers and a future Pew Center report will evaluate competitiveness issues.
In the case of community assistance, the government has considerable experience assisting communities adversely affected by policies such as trade agreements, defense downsizing, and forest protection. For this report, authors Judith Greenwald, Brandon Roberts, and Andrew Reamer apply lessons learned from previous adjustment programs to the challenges posed by addressing climate change. Specifically, the report examines the risks faced by communities whose economies rely heavily on energy production and energy-intensive industries. The authors conclude that a new federal adjustment program for at-risk communities should be part of U.S. climate change policy. The report recommends that the U.S. government take the following actions:
- Designate and fund the Economic Development Administration (E.D.A.) of the U.S. Department of Commerce to design and implement an economic adjustment program for communities;
- Identify and assist communities that are particularly dependent on energy-producing and energy-intensive sectors before dislocations occur;
- Leverage and integrate additional resources by involving multiple federal agencies and state and local governments through federal and regional task forces; and
- Be flexible in addressing community needs by supporting locally determined, comprehensive strategies for five to seven years after the implementation of new climate policies.
C learly, some steps recommended in these reports will require funding. As policies to address climate change are developed, revenue streams from related fees (e.g., from permit fees or auction revenues) could be used to assist with these programs. Addressing climate change through sound policy will make it possible to achieve our environmental objectives while shielding workers and communities from potential economic harm. The authors and the Pew Center are indebted to Robert Atkinson, Ev Ehrlich, and Phil Singerman for their comments on previous drafts of this report.
The world is becoming increasingly concerned about the risks of global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but many American decision-makers are worried about the economic impacts of policies that may be needed to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The overall size and distribution of the impacts of such policies are uncertain, and depend greatly upon how governments, businesses, consumers, and workers respond to the challenge. Efforts to avert global warming would put some American businesses, workers, and communities at risk of economic dislocation. This paper focuses on how the federal government can best assist at-risk communities. Since the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas to produce energy is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, such communities include those with high reliance on jobs in energy production — say, coal mining in Wyoming, or oil and gas production in Louisiana — and in energy-intensive industries such as steel manufacturing in Pennsylvania.
This is not the first time that important national policies have forced economic change on particular communities. The same story has been told for trade agreements, defense downsizing, and forest protection, for example. In each case, the U.S. government helped affected communities through various forms of economic adjustment assistance. In addition, in the last 20 years, numerous U.S. communities have sought to adapt to wrenching economic change brought about by global competition and recession, both with and without federal assistance.
The United States has substantial infrastructure and experience at the federal, state, and local levels in community economic adjustment. Thus, a foundation is in place for creating a new government program to help communities adversely affected by global climate change policy. Experience in the United States and elsewhere suggests that, although economic adjustment programs do not usually remove the pain of economic disruption, appropriately designed programs can lessen that pain considerably. At the same time, there is substantial room for improvement in existing adjustment efforts.
This paper recommends a new federal adjustment program for communities as part of global climate change policy. Specifically, the United States should do the following: (1) commit to address the problem by designating a single agency, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and authorizing about $550 million dedicated dollars, to design and implement an economic adjustment program; (2) be proactive by identifying communities that are particularly dependent on energy-producing and energy-intensive sectors, and by helping communities to take action before dislocations occur; (3) leverage and integrate additional resources by involving multiple federal agencies and state and local governments through federal and regional task forces; and (4) be flexible in addressing community needs by supporting locally determined, comprehensive strategies for five to seven years.
Such a program would take advantage of available experience and expertise at all levels of government, and would take into account the wide variability in local circumstances and opportunities. By doing so, it would minimize economic dislocation and maximize opportunities to create jobs and protect the environment.
About the Authors
Judith M. Greenwald
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Brandon Roberts & Associates
Brandon Roberts, president of Brandon Roberts & Associates since 1990, is a public policy consultant specializing in economic and workforce development matters. He works primarily with state- and local-level organizations to develop and implement effective policies and program activities, and to evaluate the benefits of past efforts. He has worked in California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington; in large cities such as Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, and Portland; and on a number of projects involving community-based organizations.
Before starting his own consulting firm, Mr. Roberts served as Deputy Director of the Council of State Community Development Agencies in Washington, D.C., where he worked extensively with state economic and community development agencies and helped develop policies and strategies to address the employment needs of low-income individuals. He also has held positions in the U.S. Economic Development Administration and the Executive Office of the President. Mr. Roberts has a BS in government (1975) and a MSP in urban and regional planning (1977) from Florida State University.
Andrew D. Reamer
Andrew Reamer & Associates
Andrew Reamer, Ph.D., is Principal of Andrew Reamer & Associates, a Boston-based consulting firm specializing in economic development and public policy. Dr. Reamer received a Ph.D. in Economic Development and Public Policy (1987) and a Masters in City Planning (1981) from the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Remarks of Eileen Claussen
President, Pew Center On Global Climate Change
City Club of Portland
December 14, 2001
Greetings and thank you very much. It is wonderful to be here in Portland, and I want to thank the people at the City Club for inviting me to be a part of your Friday Forum. I noticed on the club's schedule that next week's Friday Forum presenters will be the Oregon Repertory singers. I sincerely hope that none of you got the dates mixed up. I always try to be somewhat entertaining in my speeches, but singing a few holiday favorites definitely crosses the line.
Seriously, I'm glad to have the chance to be here today to talk to you about one of the most profound challenges of the 21st century. That, of course, is the challenge of global climate change. I'd like to tell you where we stand right now in the effort to deal with climate change, both here in the United States and internationally. And I'd like to tell you where we are headed - the kind of world we will leave our children and grandchildren if we stick to business as usual. But most importantly, I'd like to tell you where we need to be headed - the path that instead will allow us to pass to future generations a safer, healthier, more prosperous planet. It is not a simple path. For what is needed, I believe, is a second industrial revolution - one that takes us beyond oil and beyond coal to cleaner, more secure ways to power our global economy. Government must have a hand, a strong hand, in launching this revolution. But it can succeed only if our corporate leaders rise to the challenge as well. For while government can set the goals, only the marketplace can spur the innovation and mobilize the resources needed to achieve them. Fortunately, a growing number of forward-thinking companies already are leading the way.
First, though, I'd like to tell you why the state of Oregon holds such a special place in my heart. Some of you, I'm sure, remember back in the 70' s when Oregon became the first state in the nation to require a deposit on bottles and cans. At the time, I was a young staffer in EPA's office of solid waste. And I thought: Hey, they've got a great idea out there in Oregon. We should let other people know about it. So I put together a nifty little pamphlet describing Oregon's groundbreaking program and EPA started distributing it. Well, not everyone agreed that bottle bills were such a grand idea. The beverage industry was, shall I say, unhappy. And they let my bosses know it. I'm told, in fact, that the chairman of Pepsi raised the matter directly with the president. Soon thereafter EPA decided to "loan" me to an obscure office in Congress where I couldn't cause any more trouble. And when I was finally allowed to return, I was assigned a new area of responsibility: sewage sludge.
I'm pleased to say I was eventually able to rise above sewage sludge. I'm also pleased to note that, all these years later, Oregon is still leading the way on the environment. In fact, I know of no state that is doing more to meet the challenge of global warming. Oregon was the first state to enact mandatory controls on carbon dioxide - requiring that all new power plants meet a tough new emissions standard. The city of Portland and Multnomah County were the first local governments in the United States to adopt a plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And through your commitment to light rail and other smart growth strategies, you are demonstrating that protecting the climate goes hand in hand with preserving Oregon's enviable quality of life. These efforts really do reflect the spirit behind the Oregon state motto, "She flies with her own wings." May you soar higher and higher.
But are others joining you in flight? Climate change is by definition a global challenge. And the best efforts of any one city, state or nation will come to naught unless, ultimately, we all act together. We're by no means there yet - not even close. But it might surprise you to learn that we are in fact making headway. The reason this might surprise you is that the one thing most people heard about climate change over the past year was that President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol. His decision indeed was a setback. But let's look at what's happened since.
First, let's look at the international picture. For those of you new to this topic, the Kyoto Protocol is an agreement negotiated in 1997 that does two things: it sets targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from industrialized countries; and it allows them to meet those targets through market-based strategies like emissions trading. Don't worry. I'm not going to get too far into this. But it's worth taking a minute to understand why these market-based strategies are so important. Basically, they put the market to work to cut emissions as cost-effectively as possible. In other words, they deliver the greatest environmental benefit at the lowest possible cost. And they create market incentives that drive companies to keep coming up with better and cheaper ways to cut emissions. This is how we've tackled acid rain faster and cheaper than anyone ever imagined. Emissions trading is a concept born here in America, and it was the United States that insisted it be part of the Kyoto Protocol.
While Kyoto established a broad framework, the nitty-gritty rules still had to be negotiated before countries could ratify it. A year ago, those negotiations were at a standstill. Then President Bush rejected the Protocol. Suddenly, the rest of the world was rallying to its defense. In negotiations last July in Bonn, and then last month in Marrakech, nations made the tough compromises and worked out the rules. They're not perfect, but they do establish a workable international system for beginning to tackle this problem. The agreements in Bonn and Marrakech have been rightly declared a triumph of multilateralism. They represent a triumph as well for the principle of harnessing the global market to protect our global environment. It's true, Kyoto's targets take us only a decade into the future, and provide only a small fraction of the emissions reductions we must ultimately achieve. But the bottom line is that we have to start somewhere, and much of the world has now established that starting point. The priority now is to ensure the Protocol's swift ratification and entry into force so we can, at long last, begin to deliver on Kyoto's promise and achieve real progress.
What, then, of the United States? With just 4 percent of the world's population, we generate 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Each year, our emissions grow higher. We've rejected Kyoto, yet we have no real strategy of our own. I'm afraid I have little expectation that the Bush administration is prepared to put forward the kind of proposals needed to launch a serious effort, at least not at the moment. Nor, for that matter, was the previous administration. But just as President Bush's rejection of Kyoto helped rally international support for the Protocol, it has stimulated a very interesting and encouraging bipartisan response on Capitol Hill. Suddenly, both Democrats and Republicans seem eager to demonstrate their commitment to tackling climate change.
For instance, Senator Robert Byrd, a leading Democrat from coal-producing West Virginia, and Senator Ted Stevens, a leading Republican from oil-producing Alaska, are teaming up on a bill that would devote billions to researching and developing climate-friendly technology. It also would establish a climate change office in the White House and give the President one year to develop a comprehensive strategy aimed at stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. A first step, but an important one.
Other bills would require companies to track and disclose their emissions of greenhouse gases, an essential step toward building a comprehensive emissions reduction strategy. This is an idea that the White House seems at least open to considering. In the Senate, there's a serious debate brewing over new pollution standards for power plants - in fact, the first real debate at the federal level over the kind of mandatory controls on carbon dioxide that Oregon already has in place. Finally, another bipartisan duo, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, have said they plan to introduce legislation establishing an emissions trading system covering major sources of greenhouse gases throughout the economy. It's hard to imagine a bill like that moving through Congress anytime soon. But the very idea that two such prominent lawmakers would be advocating such a far-reaching strategy was virtually unthinkable just a year ago.
To be certain, there are many in Congress and elsewhere who remain adamantly opposed to concrete action against climate change. Perhaps they assume, in the greatest tradition of laissez-faire economics, that a rising sea level lifts all boats. There are even those who continue to question whether global warming is real. President Bush expressed his own doubts about the science when he first took office. He asked the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a special review. The NAS came back and said, yes, there are some uncertainties in the science. There always will be, I'm sure. But the NAS went on to say that, despite those uncertainties, the evidence for global warming is strong and growing stronger.
Here's what the science tells us. First, the earth is indeed getting warmer. The 1990s were the hottest decade of the entire millennium, and 1997, '98, and '99 were three of the hottest years ever. Second, this warming trend is almost certain to continue. Projections of future warming suggest an average global increase of two to ten degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the evidence strongly suggests that human activities, in particular the burning of fossil fuels, are largely to blame.
What will the impacts of this warming be? How will all this affect our children and grandchildren? Some people like to see the bright side of global warming. Lower heating bills in winter, for instance, and longer growing seasons in the Midwest. But there's good reason to believe that any potential benefits will be far outweighed by the costs.
Rising sea levels will flood coastal areas - a very real worry along portions of the U.S. coastline but a much greater worry for low-lying countries like the Netherlands and Bangladesh. Higher temperatures mean an increase in extreme weather-more flooding, more drought, and more severe storms. Historic patterns of rain and snowfall will be disrupted, putting water supplies at risk. Here in the Pacific Northwest, for instance, warmer winters will mean less snow pack in the mountains and an earlier springtime melt. Water shortages are likely to grow worse. Many of our most threatened species and ecosystems will face even greater risk. Declines in river flow, for instance, could destroy any chance of saving this region's precious salmon runs. And hotter, drier summers will stress the forests and pose an ever greater threat of wildfire.
One of the tremendous inequities of climate change is that the people facing the greatest risks are those least able to bear them. Wealthy nations like the United States can find ways to lessen the impact. We can build sea walls to protect our coasts. Our farmers can switch to other crops better suited to a warmer climate. We can strengthen our public health system to guard against diseases like malaria and dengue fever. But poorer nations struggling to feed and house their people cannot so easily adapt. And, scientists predict, they will be the ones hardest hit. For them, prolonged drought doesn't mean parched lawns and water rationing. It means starvation. Rising sea levels won't just be an inconvenience for those with beachfront property. They'll mean mass migrations and increased competition for scarce land. Lest you think this is all conjecture, it's worth noting that the people of Tuvalu, a small island nation in the Pacific, recently decided to abandon their homeland before it's swallowed by rising seas. All 11,000 residents will be relocating to New Zealand beginning next year.
So this is the kind of world that awaits us if we continue on our present course. What is the alternative? What will it take to keep our planet from overheating? Well, quite obviously, it requires dramatically reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in our atmosphere. What is the primary source of these gases? The combustion of fossil fuels. So our goal, over time, must be to end our reliance on coal and oil and to develop new sources of energy that can power our growing economy without endangering our climate. Yes, it is a tall order. As I said earlier, it will take nothing short of a second industrial revolution.
Let me be clear: This revolution cannot take place overnight. It will, in fact, take decades. But there are important steps we should take right now to begin the transition. First, we need to be more energy efficient, so we use less energy to achieve the same results. The United States has made significant improvements in energy efficiency over the last decade. But countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and Brazil are all far less energy intensive than we are, and we have clearly have much further to go. Some of this could be as simple as turning off the lights, buying a compact fluorescent next time you need a new light bulb, or carefully checking the energy efficiency ratings the next time you buy a new washer or dryer. We also should be insisting on more energy-efficient cars. The technology exists. The new Toyota Prius, a hybrid car that uses both an electric motor and an internal combustion engine, can go more than 50 miles on a gallon of gas. It's proven so popular you have to wait months to get one. If everyone in America drove a hybrid, we would save about 1.6 billion gallons of oil a year - far more than we import from the Middle East.
Improving efficiency is not enough, though. To address climate change, we will also have to emit much less carbon, and this means switching to less carbon intensive fuels. Some fuel switching can be done now, but we need a serious effort to begin laying the groundwork for the fuels of the future. We've been through energy transitions before. In the 18th century, we still relied largely on wood. In the 19th century, the steam engine took over. In the 20th century, we turned to oil. Now we must develop new fuels to meet the needs of the 21st century.
I can't tell you what the fuel of choice should be a hundred years from now. That will depend on the ingenuity of our scientists and engineers; investment decisions made in boardrooms; the unpredictable course of technological development; and the whims of the marketplace. Solar, wind and geothermal power all hold tremendous promise. But one technology that is generating real interest right now is the hydrogen fuel cell.
Fuel cells are what NASA puts on board rockets to generate power in space. They can run on different kinds of fuels. But whatever the fuel source, the only byproduct is heat and water - pure water. In other words, no smog-forming pollutants and no carbon dioxide. Fuel cells could be used to power cars, and many automakers are now engaged in efforts to make fuel cell cars a reality. They could be used to power businesses or homes. Instead of buying electricity from a coal-burning utility, a fuel cell in your basement no bigger than a central air conditioner could generate all the clean power you need. The use of hydrogen to power fuel cells is appealing because there are so many different ways to produce it. Hydrogen can be extracted from coal, oil or natural gas - or, preferably, produced from renewable energy sources. And it can take different forms. Some energy experts envision the day when, instead of filling your car at the gas pump, you'll pick up "fuel in a box" from the convenience store or a vending machine. You could go about 250 miles on a six-pack.
That's just one possibility, and there are many, many more. The point is that if we are to realize them - if we are to discover and pursue the most promising options - we must get started. This second industrial revolution requires technological and economic transformation on an unprecedented scale. And we must begin making investments now to ensure its success.
There are those who say we can't afford to address climate change, particularly when our economy is slowing. I believe they are wrong, for a host of reasons. I could tell you how the economic models they rely on exaggerate the costs of cutting emissions and fail to take into account the full range of benefits. But instead, let me tell you about the concrete experiences of the companies we work with at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Thirty-seven major companies are now members of our Business Environmental Leadership Council. These are primarily Fortune 500 companies - names you'd recognize, like Weyerhauser, Intel, Boeing, DuPont, Shell and Alcoa. Together these companies employ more than 2 million people and generate revenues of nearly $900 billion. And through their investments in emissions-cutting and climate-friendly technologies, they are demonstrating that what is good for the climate can be good, too, for the bottom line.
Many of these companies have adopted voluntary targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. We recently released a report that took a close look at six of them. It looked at the reasons why they took on targets, and what the results have been. The companies said one of the motivations for taking on a target was to improve their competitive positioning in the marketplace. And that, in fact, has been the result. Each of the companies is on track to meeting or exceeding its greenhouse gas goal. Together, they've delivered reductions equal to the annual emissions of three million cars. And all the companies are finding that their efforts are helping to reduce production costs and enhance product sales today.
So, yes, I am confident that with smart strategies that tap the power of the marketplace instead of squelching it, that do not expect more than can be delivered, and that take into account capital stock turnover cycles, we can afford to address climate change. In fact, we can strengthen the long-term health of our economy. Whatever the economic indicators for the latest quarter, over the long haul, increased efficiencies can only improve the bottom line. There are real economic opportunities that come with taking action on climate change. It would be a mistake not to seize them.
Before closing, I'd like to say a word about the new concerns now dominating our national agenda. I refer, of course, to the horrible, haunting events of September 11. The security of our nation is now, and will for some time remain, the overriding concern in Washington, and with good reason. As a result, a host of other vital issues - climate change among them - will for now take a lower profile. But I believe those of us working on climate change can still make an important contribution. We can help show how, with the right strategies, we can both protect our nation and advance the fight against global warming. This is most obvious in the case of "energy security." We all know that continuing to rely so heavily on imported oil is a costly mistake. To some the answer is drilling in the Arctic refuge. But whatever your views on the Arctic, it is clear that no amount of domestic drilling will significantly reduce our reliance on foreign oil. If we are serious about energy security - whether or not we're serious about addressing climate change - we must move beyond oil.
So, where are we in the effort against climate change? Internationally, after a decade of difficult negotiations, we are for the first time on the verge of enacting binding emissions limits for all industrialized countries but one. In the United States, despite our refusal to join the rest of the world in the Kyoto Protocol, there is a growing bipartisan recognition that we cannot continue to blithely ignore our responsibilities as the world's largest greenhouse gas polluter. In a growing number of boardrooms, corporate leaders are seeing climate change not only as a challenge but as an opportunity. And in communities like Portland, ordinary citizens are acting locally to meet what is truly a global challenge. We have a long, long way to go. But we have begun. And that is good. Thank you very much.