industries are highly organized, with access to influence through their support of congressmen and women.
Third, and partly as a consequence of the first and second points, is the fact that climate change has become so polarized politically. President Obama concentrated his energies on getting his Health Care Reform Bill through Congress. Although successful, the process increased the gulf between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican right views anything to do with expanding the powers of government with suspicion. Healthcare, intervention in the economy and efforts to combat climate change: all fall into that category as far as many Republican leaders and voters are concerned.
In no other country is opinion about climate change so acutely divided as in the US today. A poll taken by the PewFoundation late in 2010 showed that only 16 per cent of Republican voters agreed that climate change is real, caused by human activity and dangerous, compared to over 50 per cent of Democratic voters. 16 (See below, figure 5.1 , p. 106.)
In some regions, states and cities in the US, the situation contrasts quite dramatically with that on the federal level â although the large majority of initiatives have been led by Democrat-dominated state or local leaderships. A recent study looked at climate action plans developed in 16 different states, and extrapolated the findings to the national level. 17 If the actions in question were implemented in all US states, American carbon emissions would fall to 27 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. Of course, as things stand it is extremely unlikely that such an extrapolation could become a reality.
At the time of writing, yet another cap and trade bill is before the Congress, initiated by John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. The driving force of the initiative is once again primarily clean energy. The terms of the bill are quite modest â far short of what would be needed seriously to reverse the high level of emissions per person displayed by the US.
Lessons to be drawn
Some points of general interest emerge from the material discussed in this chapter:
1Â Â With the partial exception of Germany and Denmark, countries that are at the top of the league in terms of reducing emissions are there because of a preoccupation with energy security rather than climate change. In this sense, they have arrived where they are largely by accident. This category includes one of the large emerging economies, Brazil, which early on introduced ethanol as fuel for vehicles â partly because sugar, from which it is made, was very cheap at the time, and a little later because of the oil crisis. Although it took a long time in some countries to create a significant renewables sector, it is now in principle possibleto move much more quickly. The reasons are that there is past experience to draw upon, for example, in introducing relevant tax breaks; and that the technologies involved have advanced.
2Â Â The leftâright dimension can significantly affect the continuity of energy and climate change policies. Thus far, effective policies have mostly been driven by left-of-centre regimes. The Scandinavian countries, for example, are in a prime position largely because they have had long periods of left-of-centre government. Germany provides a better model for the future, since there has been something of a consensus among the parties about environmental measures. The same is true of the UK. The case of the United States shows how paralysing it can be for climate change policy when the issue becomes seriously politically polarized.
3Â Â Carbon taxes do work â although, as I shall discuss at a later point, they are rarely straightforward to implement. Putting a price on carbon is an essential component of climate change policy. Carbon taxes have the great advantage over other strategies in that they are universal and binding, although ways have to be found to reconcile them with issues of social
Third, and partly as a consequence of the first and second points, is the fact that climate change has become so polarized politically. President Obama concentrated his energies on getting his Health Care Reform Bill through Congress. Although successful, the process increased the gulf between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican right views anything to do with expanding the powers of government with suspicion. Healthcare, intervention in the economy and efforts to combat climate change: all fall into that category as far as many Republican leaders and voters are concerned.
In no other country is opinion about climate change so acutely divided as in the US today. A poll taken by the PewFoundation late in 2010 showed that only 16 per cent of Republican voters agreed that climate change is real, caused by human activity and dangerous, compared to over 50 per cent of Democratic voters. 16 (See below, figure 5.1 , p. 106.)
In some regions, states and cities in the US, the situation contrasts quite dramatically with that on the federal level â although the large majority of initiatives have been led by Democrat-dominated state or local leaderships. A recent study looked at climate action plans developed in 16 different states, and extrapolated the findings to the national level. 17 If the actions in question were implemented in all US states, American carbon emissions would fall to 27 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. Of course, as things stand it is extremely unlikely that such an extrapolation could become a reality.
At the time of writing, yet another cap and trade bill is before the Congress, initiated by John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. The driving force of the initiative is once again primarily clean energy. The terms of the bill are quite modest â far short of what would be needed seriously to reverse the high level of emissions per person displayed by the US.
Lessons to be drawn
Some points of general interest emerge from the material discussed in this chapter:
1Â Â With the partial exception of Germany and Denmark, countries that are at the top of the league in terms of reducing emissions are there because of a preoccupation with energy security rather than climate change. In this sense, they have arrived where they are largely by accident. This category includes one of the large emerging economies, Brazil, which early on introduced ethanol as fuel for vehicles â partly because sugar, from which it is made, was very cheap at the time, and a little later because of the oil crisis. Although it took a long time in some countries to create a significant renewables sector, it is now in principle possibleto move much more quickly. The reasons are that there is past experience to draw upon, for example, in introducing relevant tax breaks; and that the technologies involved have advanced.
2Â Â The leftâright dimension can significantly affect the continuity of energy and climate change policies. Thus far, effective policies have mostly been driven by left-of-centre regimes. The Scandinavian countries, for example, are in a prime position largely because they have had long periods of left-of-centre government. Germany provides a better model for the future, since there has been something of a consensus among the parties about environmental measures. The same is true of the UK. The case of the United States shows how paralysing it can be for climate change policy when the issue becomes seriously politically polarized.
3Â Â Carbon taxes do work â although, as I shall discuss at a later point, they are rarely straightforward to implement. Putting a price on carbon is an essential component of climate change policy. Carbon taxes have the great advantage over other strategies in that they are universal and binding, although ways have to be found to reconcile them with issues of social
Similar Books
Dead Men Do Tell Tales: The Strange and Fascinating Cases of a Forensic Anthropologist
William R. Maples, Michael Browning
