E-Mail This Article to a Friend Scorched-earth policy (continued)

While they wait, energy officials and environmental advocates hope Romney will take other steps — such as supporting the Cape Cod wind-energy project (which he currently opposes), or developing transit alternatives to reduce automobile mileage. (In Maine, environmental advocates are pushing for a "pay as you drive" insurance system that would link insurance premiums to how much you drive.) Options like these would lower the state’s reliance on fossil fuels, thereby helping to lower emissions.

"Unfortunately, the governors aren’t being aggressive enough," says Frank Gorke, energy advocate at the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG). No one is willing to directly fault Romney, or any other person or state, for the stagnation of the reduction efforts. But they are willing to call for accountability.

"[Romney] took really strong first steps," says Jed Thorpe of Massachusetts Clean Water Action. "He’s been a strong leader on reducing pollution generally. But now we’re at a point where we need to go beyond promises. Time is really of the essence."

State officials should continue working with power companies — both informally and through RGGI — to make sure they do their part to bring down carbon emissions, say environmental advocates whose organizations signed off on Climate Coalition report. Economic models created to weigh the risks and benefits of carbon reduction show that the local economy would not suffer as a result of emissions caps, Hamel says. And most observers agree that while corporations remain undecided about the causes of global warming, many have taken voluntary steps to reduce emissions.

The corporate world regards climate change as a "market shift," says Andrew Hoffman, who teaches about the environmental side of business at the University of Michigan. Take the auto industry, Hoffman says. If American companies don’t jump on the hybrid/renewable-energy bandwagon — with or without a governmental mandate — they risk losing money to countries such as Japan that are being forced to innovate to reduce emissions.

IT’S DIFFICULT to measure the local effects of greenhouse gases. Unlike the black clouds of pollutants that billow from smokestacks and cause smog and acid rain, or mercury, which seeps into rivers and poisons local waterways, the environmental consequences of carbon emissions are practically invisible — at least in the short term.

They’re patient pollutants. Whether the gases come from factories in Singapore, power plants in Ohio, or your own car’s tailpipe, the heat-trapping gases drift into the atmosphere and stay there, caught beneath the ozone layer. In the last century, the earth’s average surface temperatures, along with world precipitation and sea levels, went up. Some scientists — and many Republicans, including Romney — remain on the fence about whether climate change is a natural occurrence, which emissions regulation will do nothing to fix. But most experts argue that the temperature increases are the result of human activities — these days, mostly from transportation and the use of electrical power.

"It is the ultimate global-commons problem," says Robert Stavins, who chairs the Environment and Natural Resources Faculty Group at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. "No matter where [the emissions] came from, they affect everywhere."

While Stavins applauds efforts on the state level to curtail carbon emissions, he remains somewhat skeptical about local attempts to turn the tide on global warming. For Stavins, who doesn’t think geographical regions have enough clout to effect significant reductions, the only real weapon against climate change must be international.

"If you’re a citizen of Connecticut or of Boston, I understand that emotionally it feels better," he says of supporting the regional efforts. "The truth is that every citizen should do everything we can to make sure that a new international agreement is developed that the United States can sign on to."

IF GLOBAL solutions aren’t on the American horizon — at least for the next four years — local efforts will have to suffice. The way MASSPIRG’s Gorke sees it, this fork in the road provides Romney with an invaluable opportunity to wield influence and gain the national attention he seeks. "The governor needs, in the very near future, to lead the other states in the region to implement very deep cuts," Gorke says. If Romney is successful, he continues, New England could serve as a "model for the rest of the nation."

But all this won’t really matter if we don’t start seeing results. As the Climate Coalition’s report reminds us, "[U]ltimately, New England’s efforts will be judged on whether they succeeded in achieving the emission levels required under the regional agreement."

And what if they do succeed? On one hand, they stand to become precedent-setters in a country where federal action on environmental issues in general and global warming in particular has been sorely lacking — setting an example for other states and regions. On the other, it remains to be seen whether a handful of states can put a big enough drop in the global bucket.

At this point, environmentalists can only hope that the nation is watching. "If [the states involved] can show the positives," Hoffman says, "that would go a long way in getting the US engaged."

Deirdre Fulton can be reached at dfulton[a]phx.com