Environmental Protection

Economic Survival in a Warming Market

With regulation of greenhouse gas emissions looming, states and businesses should act now

Economic prosperity is in the best interest of every United States citizen. Climate change due to human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may threaten the economic survival of this nation.

Formal regulation of greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act and administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is both inevitable and necessary to mitigate global climate change and the associated detrimental economic effects. Furthermore, businesses that do not prepare for federal regulations will likely fail in a post-response global warming market. Businesses and states have already begun to self-regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in order to transition their practices and economies to alternative energy sources, preparing for expected federal GHG reduction mandates. Advantages to pre-empting federal regulation include economic growth by investing in emerging alternative energy markets and by curbing economic disasters such as property damage and changes in agricultural production resulting from climate change. For businesses to avoid the cost of trying to comply with regulations that vary by state, a comprehensive federal plan incorporating the strongest elements from existing state plans is necessary.

U.S. Policy on Climate Change
According to EPA, the U.S. government has “established a comprehensive policy to address climate change.” This policy has three basic components: slowing the growth of emissions; strengthening science, technology and institutions; and enhancing international cooperation. “To implement its climate policy, the federal government is using voluntary and incentive-based programs to reduce emissions,” according to EPA’s Web site.1 However, global temperatures are predicted to rise, and while volunteerism is a great beginning, to reach the GHG reduction goals that will truly mitigate the global warming phenomenon, the United States will need a comprehensive federal policy that directly regulates the GHGs responsible for climate change.

On Jan. 23, 2007, President George W. Bush acknowledged global warming as a priority issue.2 But Carter Roberts, president and ceo of the World Wildlife Fund, demanding an expansion of measures outlined in the president’s State of the Union Address, said “the majority of Americans, a growing number of states, and an increasing number of CEOs” have asked the federal government for a “comprehensive approach that includes a mandatory cap of emissions across sectors.”3

The Science
The greenhouse effect is the process by which energy from the sun is trapped under a blanket of atmospheric gases, heating the planet to the relatively stable temperatures that make life possible on Earth.4 Scientists are certain, according to EPA, of the role of anthropogenic GHG emissions as these chemical compounds relate to increasing temperature. At the close of 2006, EPA acknowledged the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s data on global warming to be indisputable and overwhelming, rendering the topic a nondebatable issue.5 Furthermore, as supported by the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued Feb. 2, 2007 and the first consensus statement on climate change from the American Association for the Advancement of Science concluded on Feb. 19, 2007, the overwhelming scientific consensus internationally and in the United States is that climate change is real and must be addressed.6 It stands to reason that solutions will be implemented at the regulatory level.

Self-Regulating Cities, States, and Regions
The connection between anthropogenic GHGs and global warming is established by world scientists, according to an IPCC report.7Internationally, at least 35 industrialized nations have signed the Kyoto Protocol in efforts to stem this global phenomena.8 (The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an amendment to the international treaty on climate changes that assigns mandatory targets for GHG reductions to participating nations.) In the United States, hundreds of city mayors have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and committed their cities to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.9 Across America, states are creating climate change policies to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. (See “Pioneering State Economic Plans,&rdquo.) Forty-eight states have at least one GHG measure or program in place.10 In “Trailblazers” (See Steve Barnett, "Trailblazers," Environmental Protection, June 2006), Barnett focuses on the regional coordination efforts of the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states in reducing GHG emissions, nicknamed “Reggie” or the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).11 Seven other regional efforts beyond RGGI are listed on the EPA Web site.12 These “regional efforts” as well as the individual state plans being implemented or developed are models for the federal government to follow.

Regulation attempts range from simple GHG registries to comprehensive multisector reduction of GHGs with measurable goals and clearly delineated deadlines.13 Think tanks on climate change policy are the genesis for many of the policy elements currently being experimented with by states and regional cooperatives.14 Also, borrowing from one another, states are currently the testing ground for future federal policy.15 Consequently, solutions to global warming motivated by economic survival are becoming available.

Saving Economies
One can argue that each plan from the local level up to the state and regional levels was created cooperatively between governments and businesses motivated by economic survival. Global warming will change the economic climate. For example, global warming changes rainfall patterns, which will impact agricultural practices and production.16 Potential property loss has inspired state plan development, such as New Jersey’s plan, in order to offset any vulnerability to rising sea levels.17

To mitigate global warming will call for nontraditional energy sources. Coastal states dependent on agriculture or traditional energy production for their economic base have vested economic interest in the mitigation of global warming and in solutions to energy needs that move beyond traditional fossil fuel sources because of their link to climate change. Realizing that rising sea levels would have a profound impact on New Jersey’s extensive coastline, in 2000 the state’s governor mandated a pioneer GHG reduction plan to mitigate global warming, based primarily on voluntary covenants from businesses, schools, churches, and the state’s largest utility company.18 (See “New Jersey: Tried and True,&rdquo.) In 2006, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger mandated a primarily regulatory GHG reduction scheme that called for reductions across every sector.19 Both state plans were motivated by economic survival.

State Efforts
Climate action among states ranges from forming planning groups to implementing regulatory schemes. Forty-eight states have committed to at least one climate action. The most common action, besides participating in planning groups, is the creation of GHG inventories in 42 states. Tracking a pollutant is the logical first step toward future regulation. While the federal Clean Air Act already regulates many harmful pollutants across the United States, carbon dioxide (CO2) and many other GHGs have yet to be written into federal law as pollutants. Thus, these chemical compounds are not formally regulated on a national level. Mandatory CO2 reporting and voluntary registries fall under the category of identifying without yet regulating. Eight regional cooperatives involving 36 states have or plan to create inventories and registries, track renewable energy generation and sales, and implement GHG reduction strategies. “A registry is a database where sources can record the releases of greenhouse gases that result from their activities,” according to EPA, and is “an attempt to bring together, within a single database, a large number of GHG inventories.”20 Even without federal law, the majority of states have joined regional initiatives to discuss climate action and work together toward a solution.

State Climate Action
Fourteen states have GHG reduction targets with progressive goals; for example, New York is striving to reach 1990 GHG levels by 2010. Following in California’s footsteps, 11 states have implemented a law requiring new vehicles to reduce GHG emissions. Twenty-one states have renewable energy portfolios that commit the state to a percentage of renewable energy generation out of the total power generation for that state. For example, Arizona has committed 15 percent of its power generation to being renewable by 2025.21 Following the success of New Jersey, 20 states have public benefits funds; the funds are built from a small charge on consumer utility bills with the money supporting energy efficiency and renewable-energy projects.22 Four states have gone so far as to mandate certain power plants to cap or offset their CO2 emissions.23

State Action Plans
EPA states that “climate change programs and activities are an integral part of the Agency’s mission to protect human health and the environment.”24 EPA provides both the scientific backing for global warming and resources for states to create GHG reduction plans.25 More than half of states in the United States have created plans. While all but two states (Arkansas and South Carolina) have at least one GHG-related measure or program in place, according to the EPA Web site, 29 out of 50 states have policies comprehensive enough to be called state action plans.26 Twenty-one states with action plans have at least one program in five or more of eight sectors: agriculture and forestry, commercial, cross-sectoral climate change initiatives or programs, industrial, power generation, residential, transportation, and waste.27 Fifteen cities in 12 states have also adopted local action plans following the same eight-sector format.28 The latter are laid out in the State Action Plan Recommendations Matrix and the Local Action Plan Recommendations Matrix, which break each sector into categories that follow into policy.29 The matrix indicates how many policy programs each state has in each category and in each sector.30 For example, Alabama has three policies in the agriculture and forestry sector, two of which are under the afforestation initiatives category.31 Then, under that category, Alabama has one policy each in rural and urban afforestation initiatives.32 Rural afforestation initiatives are defined as “programs that promote planting of trees in rural areas to increase carbon sequestration.”33 Trees capture CO2 as they grow, removing or sequestering it from the atmosphere.34

Other Resources for States
Independent think tanks are also excellent resources for state plan designs and for the federal government to follow. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change provides a comprehensive search engine for finding GHG reduction programs by state, type, and keyword. The center identifies 10 types of programs implemented by different states across the United States, one category of which is comprehensive. The nine specific programs are agricultural, buildings, energy efficiency, energy supply, forestry, industry, sequestration and offsets, transportation, and waste management. According to Pew’s standards, comprehensive programs can be found in Maryland, Maine, and New Jersey.35
The Center for Clean Air Policy has also produced a general guide for states to create GHG reduction plans. The center has helped create or provided advice on specialized plans for the following states: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, Illinois, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and California.36 Actions taken by cities can be drawn from places such as City Mayors Environment, an archive reporting environmental news on cities worldwide.37 In a list of the greenest U.S. cities, Austin, Texas, is proclaimed as the epitome of a green city.38 The steps taken by Austin, for example, could be mirrored elsewhere.

A Changing Business Climate
An expansion of federal regulatory measures to prevent economic disaster from responses to GHG emissions is necessary. Business as usual is no longer an option. A 2006 study by Andrew Hoffman of the University of Michigan for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change shows a “growing consensus among corporate leaders that taking action on climate change is a sensible business decision.” The report spotlights companies that are modifying their approach “from managing the financial risks of climate change to exploiting new business opportunities for energy-efficient and low-carbon products and services.” Hoffman lays out a step-by-step proactive approach for companies to “reshape their core business strategies” to prepare for “the coming market transformation” and a “future where greenhouse gases are regulated and carbon-efficiency is in demand.” The report gives suggestions for how companies can engage in the policy discussion.39

Conclusions
Based on the existing efforts of states across the nation, elected officials, initiatives by business leaders, and think tanks, the desire exists for a federal policy for curbing greenhouse gases. A federal law will provide consistency and responsible policy for businesses attempting to operate across state lines. Furthermore, states can feel empowered that state plans are supported by federal law. Drawing from the best common elements among existing state plans, a comprehensive federal policy to cap GHG emissions can be written for the overall economic benefit of the United States.

Pioneering State Economic Plans

By H. Troy Stuckey, Ph.D. and Hannah R. Kolni
“Not only does climate action pay, but early climate action pays more.” Such was the prediction of a study conducted for California’s new state plan by the University of California, Berkeley.1

Large economy states, such as California, have successfully implemented comprehensive plans with expectations of consumer savings and economic boom. States such as New Jersey have succeeded in executing a public/private cooperative, comprehensive plan since 2000.2 (See “New Jersey: Tried and True)

The California Climate Change Center of UC-Berkeley, Center for Clean Air Policy, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, and the law firm Nixon Peabody LLP talk about California’s comprehensive GHG reduction plan, passed Sept. 27, 2006, how it will be implemented, and what the predicted economic benefits of the plan will be. According to Nixon Peabody, “the new regulatory scheme will…likely provide California with a competitive advantage in the emerging clean energy market.” “Economists predict…substantial financial and employment benefits.”3

California has the most ambitious and most projected economically beneficial plan to date, based mostly on regulation. The state hopes to achieve 1990 levels of CO2 by 2020.4
New Jersey was one of the first states to set GHG reduction goals starting in 2000 in a mostly voluntary program; its aim was to return to 1990 levels by 2005. New Jersey executed for seven years a cooperative plan that included educational institutions, churches, and industries.5 In February 2007, New Jersey’s governor adjusted the timeline for the goal of reaching 1990 levels to 2020 and added a new and even more aggressive goal of reaching 80 percent below 2006 CO2 levels by 2050.6

California has recognized that renewables are the energy of the future and is investing in what’s described as the next Silicon Valley.7 Agricultural states beginning with Nebraska and followed by the surrounding states have linked agriculture with GHG reduction, recognizing that “growing carbon would create a new crop for farmers.”8 States such as California have recognized how global warming might affect rainfall patterns and thus impact agricultural production negatively.9 To states such as New Jersey, the threat of rising sea levels is a big concern.10 Seeing the economic necessity and benefits of mitigating global warming, these states have implemented state action plans to reduce GHG emissions. California and New Jersey each, respectively, has a new comprehensive and a tested comprehensive program. There is no indication of an economic decline as a result of action taken – in fact the opposite is projected.11

Two independent reports released in January 2006 conclude that California’s “ambitious plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions could create tens of thousands of new jobs and dramatically boost the economy in the coming years.” One report, “Managing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California,” was put together by the California Climate Change Center at UC-Berkeley and released in January 2006 based on the implications of Executive Order #S-3-05 signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger on June 1, 2005. “The study found that the cost savings on fuel and gas generated by curbing greenhouse gases would translate” into 20,000 jobs with a $60 billion expansion of the economy.12

Voluntary measures are insufficient to reach the goal of meeting 1990 GHG levels by 2020, according to the studies.13 The Center for Climate Action Policy (CCAP) analyzed the cost to implement a range of GHG and carbon sequestration measures in multiple sectors and found the targets could be met with no net cost to consumers.14 The 2010 goal of a total reduction of 58 MMTCO2e (million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) can be easily exceeded if measures already in place in California, plus new cost-effective reductions in the oil refining and power sectors, 25 percent of California’s GHG emissions in 2002, are implemented. Seventy-seven percent of reductions targeted for 2010 have a cost below $10 per ton and 28 percent of the reductions result in net savings.15

New Jersey: Tried and True

By H. Troy Stuckey, Ph.D. and Hannah R. Kolni
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, by a 1998 administrative order, planned to reduce the state’s GHG levels 3.5 percent from 1990 levels by 2005 out of concern for rising sea levels. The plan was based initially on voluntary covenants with coalitions of higher education institutions, public schools, congregations, and the Public Service Enterprise Group Fossil (PSEG), the state’s largest utility company. PSEG agreed to fines if the 15 percent GHG reduction goal by 2005 from 1990 levels were not achieved.1
The state set a Renewable Portfolio Standard that would lead to 4 percent mandated state renewable energy use by 2012. The development cost was taken from a “social benefit charge” on utility bills with a goal of a two MMTCO2e reduction. In 2003, CO2 and methane reporting became mandatory. The N.J. Department of Environmental Protection is experimenting with new approaches and the possibility of an increasingly regulatory approach. Since 1998, greenhouse gases have declined annually. At the time the Pew Center report was published, there was a possibility the state would actually exceed the 2005 goals.2
The New Jersey comprehensive state plan reportedly has not harmed the economy. The state broke ground with covenant programs that while voluntary, involved signing a contract and agreeing to nonattainment penalties. The proactive approach to GHG reduction produced a cooperative effort in private and public sectors that appears to have been effective.
Likewise, the new California comprehensive plan is robust, backed by extensive research into economically viable approaches, and takes a progressive economic initiative to defy industry fears and boost the economy. California’s regulatory, market-based, and incentive-driven program is expected to gain greater and faster reduction results than the more voluntary-type programs typical of current federal policy.3

End Notes

Economic Survival in a Warming Market:

1Climate Change Basic Facts. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec. 14, 2006. U.S. EPA. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html).

2 “State of the Union Energy Proposals Draw Mixed Reaction,” Environment News Service. Jan. 23, 2007: 1.

3 Ibid: 4.

4 Climate Change-Science. U.S. EPA. Feb. 2, 2007. U.S.EPA. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html).

5 Climate Change Basic Facts. U.S. EPA. Dec. 14, 2006. U.S.EPA. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html).

6 Climate Change: 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports. February 2, 2007. U.S. EPA. Feb. 21, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ipcc2007.html), and Geographic Books, “National Eminent Scientists Warn of Disastrous, Permanent Global Warming,” Environment News Service. Feb. 19, 2007: 1.

7 Thomas Maugh and Karen Kaplan, “Deal with warming, don’t debate it, scientists warn; The U.N.’s stark report puts policymakers on notice, though there is no consensus on action,” Los Angeles Times. Feb. 3, 2007: 1. (http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.libraries.smu.edu/universe/document)

8 Karl Ritter, “Industrial world losing sight of Kyoto targets as greenhouse emissions grow,” Associated Press. Oct. 13, 2006: 1. (http://web.lexis-nexis.com.proxy.libraries.smu.edu/universe/document?)

9 Brian Baker, “U.S. cities to try ‘smart growth to’ conform to Kyoto Protocol,” City Mayors Environment 2006: 1. (http://www.citymayors.com/environment/smartgrowth_us.html)

10 Climate Change-State and Local Governments: State and Regional Climate Actions Table. U.S. EPA. Oct. 19, 2006. U.S. EPA. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/stateandlocalgov/state_actionslist.html).

11 Steve Barnett, “Trailblazers,” Environmental Protection. June 2006: 1. (http://www.eponline.com/Stevens/EPPub.nsf/frame?open&redirect=http://www.eponline.com/stevens/eppub.nsf/PubArchive?openview)

12 Climate Change-State and Local Governments: State and Regional Climate Actions Table. U.S. EPA. Oct. 19, 2006. U.S. EPA. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/stateandlocalgov/state_actionslist.html).

13 Ibid.

14 Tom Peterson, “Climate Change Mitigation: Process and Policy Options for State Greenhouse Gas Plans.” Publications and Presentations. February 2004: 2. Center for Clean Air Policy. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.ccap.org/publications_sp.htm).

15 Climate Change-State and Local Governments: State and Regional Climate Actions Table. U.S. EPA. Oct. 19, 2006. U.S.EPA. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/stateandlocalgov/state_actionslist.html).

16 Frederic Beck, “California Can Meet Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets at No Net Cost While Creating 20,000 Jobs and Expanding State’s Economy by 60 Billion,” Environment and Energy Study Institute. May 2006: 1. (http://www.eesi.org/publications/Fact%20Sheets/EC_Fact_Sheets/Factoid15.pdf)

17 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target, Program Type: Comprehensive, State: New Jersey. State and Local Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Programs. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Nov. 11, 2006. (http://www.pewclimate.org/states.cfm?ID=42), and State of New Jersey, Office of the Governor: News Room: Press Releases. Feb. 13, 2007. Governor Corzine Calls for Sweeping Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in New Jersey. Feb. 13, 2007. Office of the Governor. Feb. 2, 2007.(http://newjersey.gov/governor/news/news/approved/20070213a.html).

18 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target, Program Type: Comprehensive, State: New Jersey. State and Local Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Programs. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Nov. 11, 2006. (http://www.pewclimate.org/states.cfm?ID=42).

19 “Governor Schwarzenegger Signs California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” Nixon Peabody LLP CleanTech Alert. Sept. 27, 2006: 1. (http://www.nixonpeabody.com/linked_media/publications/CleantechAlert_09272006.pdf).

20 Climate Change-State and Local Governments: State and Regional Climate Actions Table. U.S. EPA. Oct. 19, 2006. U.S. EPA. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/stateandlocalgov/state_actionslist.html).

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid., and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target, Program Type: Comprehensive, State: New Jersey. State and Local Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Programs. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Nov. 11, 2006. (http://www.pewclimate.org/states.cfm?ID=42).

23 Climate Change-State and Local Governments: State and Regional Climate Actions Table. U.S. EPA. Oct. 19, 2006. U.S. EPA. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/stateandlocalgov/state_actionslist.html).

24 Ibid.

25 Climate Change: Science: Science. U.S. EPA. Feb. 2, 2007. U.S.EPA. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html), and Climate Change-State and Local Governments: State and Local Governments. U.S. EPA. Oct. 19, 2006. U.S.EPA. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/stateandlocalgov/index.html), and Climate Change- State and Local Governments: State Action Plans. U.S. EPA. Nov. 6, 2006. U.S.EPA. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/stateandlocalgov/state_action.html).

26 Climate Change-State and Local Governments: State and Regional Climate Actions Table. U.S. EPA. Oct. 19, 2006. U.S. EPA. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/stateandlocalgov/state_actionslist.html).

27 Climate Change-What Can You Do: State Action Plan Recommendations Matrix. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/StatePolicyActions.nsf/matrices/0?opendocument).

28 Climate Change-What Can You Do: Local Action Plan Recommendations Matrix. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/StatePolicyActions.nsf/matrices/local).

29 Climate Change-What Can You Do: State Action Plan Recommendations Matrix. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/StatePolicyActions.nsf/matrices/0?opendocument), and Climate Change-What Can You Do: Local Action Plan Recommendations Matrix. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/StatePolicyActions.nsf/matrices/local).

30 Climate Change-What Can You Do: State Action Plan Recommendations Matrix. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/StatePolicyActions.nsf/matrices/0?opendocument).

31 Climate Change-What Can You Do: Agriculture and Forestry. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/StatePolicyActions.nsf/(LookupMatrices)/Agriculture+and+Forestry?OpenDocument).

32 Climate Change-What Can You Do: Afforestation Initiatives. U.S. EPA. Feb. 24, 2007. U.S. EPA. Feb. 24, 2007 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/StatePolicyActions.nsf/(LookupMatrices)/Agriculture+and+Forestry_Afforestation+Initiatives?OpenDocument).

33 Climate Change-What Can You Do: Rural Afforestation Initiatives. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007. U.S. EPA. Feb. 18, 2007 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/StatePolicyActions.nsf/uniqueKeyLookup/NGLK5QSJGD).

34 United States, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, May 2002: 29. (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/greengas.pdf)

35 Comprehensive. State and Local Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Programs. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Nov. 11, 2006. (http://www.pewclimate.org/states.cfm).

36 Tom Peterson, “Climate Change Mitigation: Process and Policy Options for State Greenhouse Gas Plans.” Publications and Presentations February 2004: 2. Center for Clean Air Policy. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://www.ccap.org/publications_sp.htm).

37 City Mayors Environment. City Mayors. City Mayors. Feb. 18, 2007 (http://www.citymayors.com/sections/environment_content.html).

38 Nicki Kipen, “New York, Portland and Chicago are among the greenest US cities,” City Mayors Environment. April 27, 2006: 1. (http://www.citymayors.com/environment/us_greencities.html)

39 “Global Warming Changing the Business Climate,” Environment News Service. Oct. 20, 2006: 1. (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2006/2006-10-20-09.asp#anchor5)

Pioneering State Economic Plans:

1 Media Relations, “New report says climate action promotes economic growth in the state,” UC Berkeley News. Jan. 23, 2006: 1. (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/23_climate.shtml)

2 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target, Program Type: Comprehensive, State: New Jersey. State and Local Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Programs. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Nov. 11, 2006. (http://www.pewclimate.org/states.cfm?ID=42).

3 “Governor Schwarzenegger Signs California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” Nixon Peabody LLP CleanTech Alert. Sept. 27, 2006: 1. (http://www.nixonpeabody.com/linked_media/publications/CleantechAlert_09272006.pdf).

4 Media Relations, “New report says climate action promotes economic growth in the state,” UC Berkeley News. Jan. 23, 2006: 1. (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/23_climate.shtml)

5 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target, Program Type: Comprehensive, State: New Jersey. State and Local Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Programs. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Nov. 11, 2006. (http://www.pewclimate.org/states.cfm?ID=42).

6 State of New Jersey, Office of the Governor: News Room: Press Releases. Feb. 13, 2007. Governor Corzine Calls for Sweeping Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in New Jersey. Feb. 13, 2007. Office of the Governor. Feb. 2, 2007 (http://newjersey.gov/governor/news/news/approved/20070213a.html).

7 Media Relations, “New report says climate action promotes economic growth in the state,” UC Berkeley News. Jan. 23, 2006: 1. (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/23_climate.shtml)

8 Barry G. Rabe, “Greenhouse and Statehouse: The Evolving State Government Role in Climate Change.” Solutions November 2002: 18-19, 21. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Feb. 14, 2007 (http://pewclimate.org/docUploads/states_greenhouse.pdf).

9 Frederic Beck, “California Can Meet Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets at No Net Cost While Creating 20,000 Jobs and Expanding State’s Economy by 60 Billion,” Environment and Energy Study Institute. May 2006: 1. (http://www.eesi.org/publications/Fact%20Sheets/EC_Fact_Sheets/Factoid15.pdf)

10 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target, Program Type: Comprehensive, State: New Jersey. State and Local Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Programs. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Nov. 11, 2006. (http://www.pewclimate.org/states.cfm?ID=42).

11 State of New Jersey, Office of the Governor: News Room: Press Releases. Feb, 13, 2007. Governor Corzine Calls for Sweeping Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in New Jersey. Feb. 13, 2007. Office of the Governor. Feb. 2, 2007 (http://newjersey.gov/governor/news/news/approved/20070213a.html), and Frederic Beck, “California Can Meet Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets at No Net Cost While Creating 20,000 Jobs and Expanding State’s Economy by 60 Billion,” Environment and Energy Study Institute. May 2006: 1. (http://www.eesi.org/publications/Fact%20Sheets/EC_Fact_Sheets/Factoid15.pdf)

12 Frederic Beck, “California Can Meet Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets at No Net Cost While Creating 20,000 Jobs and Expanding State’s Economy by 60 Billion,” Environment and Energy Study Institute. May 2006: 1. (http://www.eesi.org/publications/Fact%20Sheets/EC_Fact_Sheets/Factoid15.pdf)

13 Ibid: 2.

14 Ibid: 1.

15 Ibid: 2.

New Jersey: Tried and True:

1 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target, Program Type: Comprehensive, State: New Jersey. State and Local Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Programs. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Nov. 11, 2006. (http://www.pewclimate.org/states.cfm?ID=42).

2 Ibid.

3 Frederic Beck, “California Can Meet Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets at No Net Cost While Creating 20,000 Jobs and Expanding State’s Economy by 60 Billion,” Environment and Energy Study Institute. May 2006: 1. (http://www.eesi.org/publications/Fact%20Sheets/EC_Fact_Sheets/Factoid15.pdf)

Stuckey and Kolni 12

This article originally appeared in the 06/01/2007 issue of Environmental Protection.

comments powered by Disqus

Free e-News Subscription

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy