Jan Mazurek, director of the Progressive Policy Institute's Environmental Policy Program, gave a lecture titled "Public Policy Responses to Global Warming" on November 2 as part of the Levitt Center series "Responsibilities of a Superpower." Mazurek discussed the United States government's reaction to the threat of global warming and possible programs to implement in response.
"The United States is the world's largest energy user," began Mazurek. Yet the United States is not one of 180 nations who signed the Kyoto agreement—an international agreement to reduce use of gases that affect global warming--in February 2005. President Bush cited the large expense of controlling the problem and unclear scientific evidence as reasons for not signing the agreement, Mazurek explained.
There will be a 2-6 degree global warm-up by 2100, "assuming the majority of scientists are right," said Mazurek. The majority of scientists also agree that human activity contributes to global warming, which is caused by six main gases trapping heat in the upper atmosphere and increasing Earth's temperature. The human causes are mostly from fossil fuel combustion, such as using coal to generate electricity and oil for fuel. If trends continue, scientists believe oceans may rise 1-3 feet in the next 50 years as a result of polar ice melting, which would have extreme effects for coastal communities, as demonstrated recently by Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma.
State and local governments have begun implementing laws to reduce emission of green house gases, which has resulted in different energy use laws in different cities and states. "Tthe states are doing what the federal government refuses to do," said Mazurek. This summer a small step was made in Congress when the Senate proposed a bill that the U.S. do something about global warming risks. A major force behind this bill was the business community's concern about creating a level playing field—industry does not want to deal with different laws in different states and cities, explained Mazurek. Other forces driving the federal government to take some action are the Christian Evangelicals and insurance companies.
The Kyoto agreement follows a "cap and trade" style process as a way of reducing the effects of global warming. A Cap and Trade plan creates one, mandatory, enforceable limit for all entities. It does not specify how to meet the allowances, jus that they must be met, and those who beat the allowance can sell excess allowances to those who cannot control emissions cost-effectively, Mazurek said.
Currently, there are two proposals in Congress about how to deal with emission control. "Both are much more modest than what the Kyoto protocol would have required of the United States," she said. One proposal is by Senator Bingaman (D-NM) and suggests a mandatory requirement to reduce green house gas "intensity", but not requiring a cap. The other proposal by Senator McCain (R-AZ) suggests a set cap, but allows 15% of the total cap as "offsets", meaning businesses or other entities can buy allowances from others who do not need the total allowance, such as farmers or foresters.
Mazurek closed with her predictions about the future of global warming legislation in the United States. She said she does not think the U.S. will have a mandatory cap and trade plan before 2008, when there is a presidential election. Finally, Mazurek said that she believes the McCain proposal will eventually pass. "McCain is a fighter. I believe him when he says '…over time, we will win'," added Mazurek in closing.
More information can be found on the PPI website at ppionline.org.
-- by Laura Trubiano '07
