There are a lot of conflicts between federal policies and state policies that need to be cleared up. Issues such as border security that are being hashed out in court to decide if the states are overstepping the federal government on issues important to the states. The constitution states that the federal goverment is responsible for many things and spells out those functions and leaves the unspecified things to be handled by the states. The lack of effort by the federal system hurts the states in many areas and this leads to the states to find their own fixes. Also, federal mandates that cause the states to spend money they do not have is another problem to be addressed.
The one conflict in the article about California regulating CO2 at a higher standard than federal regulations is a good example of federal vs state issues. California won the judgement, for now, because it had policies in place before the federal government did.
The research by Secure American Future shows that there may be a cost for doing nothing vs doing something distasteful now. This is a better way to make choices if the information is consistent. I believe that there is a change happening in global climates but I don't know how fast the changes are happening or if the suggested remedies would work. I do believe that human population is reaching unsustainable levels that are causing supply problems with potable water and the food chain.
In case you missed this development: In late April, a federal appeals court in California upheld a state air pollution law that puts stricter limits on carbon dioxide emissions than the federal law. The law had been challenged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Automobile Dealers Association. California has the right to request waivers from the federal standards because it had clean air regulations on the books before the federal government did.
In any case, the appeals court dismissed the case for many reasons, most of all because it couldn’t see evidence that the laws had caused injury or economic harm. Although I’d be willing to bet that there is another appeal in the offing.
Which brings me to the theme of this post: the need for states to exercise individual rights and policies about climate change, even if the federal government won’t or can’t do anything about it. A public policy and research organization called American Security Project suggests that ignoring climate change will have a specific economic impact in every one of the 50 U.S. states, depending on what local governments decide to do about it. Here’s the video describing the impetus behind the project, called Pay Now, Pay Later.
American Security Project board member Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey governor and a former Administrator of the U.S Environmental Protection Agency said:
“Too often the debate about climate breaks down over cost, with many Americans rightfully concerned about what limiting pollution would do to our economy. But what this series of reports shows is that there is a cost on the other side of the ledger, too. There will be costs to our economic security from climate change—and significant ones at that—if we do nothing but continue business as usual.”
Yes, this organization has a political agenda, but I got a kick out of reading some of the individual state write-ups. I looked at three very different ones, including my home state of course. Here are some highlights:
Colorado: The challenge is that the state is heavily dependent on natural resources for its $11 billion recreation and tourism industry and for its $5.5 billion agricultural industry. The opportunity: Colorado sets up as fourth in the nation for solar and geothermal resources and 11th for wind power generation potential.
Florida: The biggest potential impact of climate change would be on Florida’s real estate and the costs of severe weather. The report suggests: “As early as 2025, Florida will likely see economic losses of at least $27 billion each year.” Agriculture and tourism would contribute to that hit. On the plus side: the state obviously has vast untapped renewable energy potential, especially in solar.
New Jersey: Ah, my home state. The Jersey Shore. Climate change could affect the coastline, which the report suggests represents close to $100 billion in land and property values and generates at least $30 billion in tourism for the state each year. The good news is that New Jersey could generate up to a third of its electricity from renewable energy sources; looking beyond its nuclear legacy, the state has lots of research and development going on in solar and wind generation.
What are the implications for your state? Click on the map to find out.
