States Take the Lead
Call it the Greenhouse in the Statehouse effect. While climate change may sow no fear in the White House, plenty of worried governors, legislators, and other local officials are rejecting Washington's cue.
The result is an increasingly energy-schizoid land. From the state level, the United States is actually something of a global leader, passing laws sharp enough to take a bite out of climate change. "Sometimes the government leads the people, and sometimes the people lead the government. In this case, the states are way ahead of Washington," says Mickey Glantz of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
Propelled by subsidies, tax breaks, and mandates to wean industry from fossil fuel, broad swaths of the country bristle with aggressive programs to put the brakes on global warming. More than half the states have climate action plans, and 22 have specific targets their utilities must reach in the share of their power from renewable sources, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Evidence is hard to miss, such as the five huge wind turbines that sprouted last year in a marsh near Atlantic City's casinos. Says Jeanne Fox, head of New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities, "I'm in this job because this is the No. 1 priority for the world. Our species could literally be destroying the Earth." Her state typifies the trend. Governors of both parties have backed ever tougher conservation and energy standards. In four years, six solar cell installations have grown to more than 1,000, with hundreds more applications each month.
Wind power. Near the Tug Hill ski area in upstate New York, 120 wind turbines should yield power for nearly 60,000 homes, helping the state generate a fourth of its electricity from green sources by 2013. New York, prodded by Gov. George Pataki, also leads the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI. Its seven Northeast states agreed in December to use a trading market in "carbon allowances" to cap power plant emissions. It would work somewhat like the federal cap-and-trade sulfur emissions system, which has reduced acid rain.
The eco-energy push is hardly limited to "blue" states. Jon Nelson, a North Dakota grain farmer and Republican legislator, bubbles with excitement describing the howling winds on the northern Plains that will be harnessed for energy, and a program to burn the state's huge reserves of coal while pumping resulting CO2 deep into the ground. He expects to be putting local, biodiesel fuel in his John Deere tractor soon. Dealing with global warming is an urgent issue, he says, "and it is good for economic development, too."
Here was California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said last year: "I say the debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat. And we know the time for action is now." His goal is an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2050. In the shorter run, a state law--under court challenge by automakers--demands a 30 percent vehicle emission reduction by 2015. At least 10 other states plan to adopt California's standards if they win in court.
California may be proof that one can cut emissions, increase efficiency, and not disrupt the economy. Since the energy crisis of the 1970s, the state has subsidized wind and other alternatives to fossil energy while requiring use of more efficient appliances, building designs, and industrial processes. True, the state's electricity prices are now among the nation's highest, but low usage keeps customer bills among the lowest. Californians use 40 percent less electric power than the U.S. average, and the state's economy has thrived.
Companies that fight such rules by lobbying Congress miss the boat, says energy consultant Kenneth Colburn. He contrasts the dismal bond ratings of U.S. automakers that stuck with SUVs while Toyota and Honda sold hybrids. "Winners go to market," he says. "Losers go to Washington."
This story appears in the April 10, 2006 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.