Fuzzy Climate Change

pssst, listen: this will help the economy.”

Peter Darby of PG&E Corporation stated that, “Our emissions far eclipse those of any other nation in the world and so we are undeniably part of the problem.” He urged the U.S. to become part of the international discussion.

These business leaders find the science so compelling that they’re proposing that there is more economic benefit than economic risk in finding solutions to global warming. For them limiting greenhouse gases is good for energy security, strengthening America’s ability to compete in tomorrow’s markets. Putting America in a strong leadership role means the US can shape the global response to global warming.

One of their proposals includes mandating a cap and trade program to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Those companies who could reduce most cheaply would do it and sell their emissions credits to companies having trouble. (This is already happening in Europe as well as many U.S. cities, but it is still voluntary.) This market-driven approach would create incentives for companies to become cleaner. This would in turn stimulate investment and innovation in new technology for energy efficiency, renewable power, solar, and wind.

Not everyone will agree with USCAP’s climate action principles, but you’d think Bush might have given it a chance.

Of course, at the State of the Union Address it never came up. He briefly talked about renewable fuels like ethanol, but said nothing about mandatory limits on carbon emissions.

As Bush continues to evade the issue, leaders from around the world, U.S. environmental and corporate leaders, politicians, and the American people are stepping up. In Congress the issue is actually gathering bipartisan momentum. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is setting up a committee to produce legislation by this summer. But Bush ignores it all.

As the reports pile up, I have to ask: when will our president choose to have clarity?