Powered by Google
Home
Listings
Editors' Picks
News
Music
Movies
Food
Life
Arts + Books
Rec Room
Moonsigns
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Personals
Adult Personals
Classifieds
Adult Classifieds
- - - - - - - - - - - -
stuff@night
FNX Radio
Band Guide
MassWeb Printing
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Work For Us
Newsletter
RSS Feeds
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Webmaster
Archives



sponsored links
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
PassionShop.com
Sex Toys - Adult  DVDs - Sexy  Lingerie


   
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend

Scorched-earth policy
As the feds give global warming the cold shoulder, it’s more vital than ever for New England to turn up the heat on its own emissions-reducing initiatives
BY DEIRDRE FULTON

JUST AS THE United States became the only major industrialized nation (other than Australia) to reject the Kyoto Protocol — an international endeavor to stem the hazardous, heat-trapping emissions that pump from cars, homes, and power plants into the earth’s atmosphere and threaten our health, ecosystems, and economy — a new report shows that New England, typically a hotbed of blue-state environmental activism, is falling short in its own attempt to reduce regional contributions to global warming.

Last Wednesday, 141 nations signed the Kyoto Protocol. Though the United States accounts for almost 25 percent — more than any other single country — of the world’s global-warming emissions, advocates say there’s been little federal action on this issue since at least 2001. That’s when George W. Bush, echoing concerns that had also been voiced by his predecessor Bill Clinton, opted out of Kyoto, citing national economic concerns and calling on developing nations to commit to greater sacrifices than they do under the current agreement. No wonder China, India, Mexico, and Brazil signed on, say US and Australian leaders. They have much less to lose as more stringent emissions regulations go into effect for other nations worldwide.

The US position may or may not be fair, but we do know this much: it doesn’t move us very far toward addressing the looming problem of global warming. And that makes regional and state-level efforts all the more important.

RIGHT AROUND the time Bush rejected the Kyoto treaty in 2001, the six New England governors and the five eastern-Canadian premiers signed the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), aimed at reducing what experts call "greenhouse gases" — primarily carbon dioxide, plus some methane, nitrous oxide, and other industrial gases. Much rides on the success of this agreement. Other states and regions have made strides toward localized global-warming plans (California’s fuel-efficiency initiatives are one example), but the joint New England/Canadian strategy has been one of the most coordinated and aggressive.

The plan’s goal is to reduce regional emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, and to 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. To that end, the New England states have each crafted ambitious state-action plans. Here in Massachusetts, Governor Mitt Romney’s 72-point Climate Protection Plan calls for everything from "smart growth" in cities (designing more energy-friendly and public-transit-oriented urban areas), to increased fuel efficiency in cars, to investment in renewable energy sources. The plan also requires the state to develop methods of tracking and reporting greenhouse-gas emissions, to facilitate business-leader roundtables, and to provide technical assistance and incentives to the business community.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), an effort by the entire Northeast to implement a realistic "cap-and-trade" program for the region’s power plants, represents another state-level strategy. The initiative, originally proposed by New York governor George Pataki, would essentially set a reduced-emissions cap, but would then allow companies with higher emissions to buy carbon "credits" from those with lower levels. Since the geographical area covered by RGGI emits more greenhouse gases than entire countries do, the measure could make a significant dent in emissions. (The cap-and-trade idea is a common one in pollution agreements. In fact, signers of the Kyoto treaty will use a similar emissions-trading system to help reach international goals; countries with higher emissions will be able to take out loans from less industry-heavy nations.)

Noble intentions, all. But last week, the New England Climate Coalition (comprising several of New England’s leading environmental organizations) released a report card of sorts on CCAP compliance, called "Getting on Track: New England’s Rising Global Warming Emissions and How To Reverse the Trend." Although the region is halfway to its 2010 milepost, the report concludes, it continues to devour more, not less, of the fossil fuels that contribute to global-warming emissions. Oil consumption for residential heating jumped three percent since 2001, gasoline use is up almost nine percent, and natural-gas consumption for electric power generation rose more than 26 percent. Massachusetts commuters, generators, and power plants contributed a full 45 percent of the entire region’s emissions.

The main problem, according to the report, is that while the state and regional CCAP-compliance plans are sound, implementation is inconsistent and moving too slowly. Much of the problem stems from the fact that an RGGI cap has not yet been set. Until a cap is set, which Massachusetts RGGI representative Sonia Hamel estimates will happen in July, the state can’t establish or enforce its own emissions levels. A transit initiative is also on hold; though Massachusetts had promised to bind its tailpipe-emissions standards to California’s, state officials must now wait for the Golden State to finalize those regulations.

page 1  page 2 

Issue Date: February 25 - March 3, 2005
Back to the News & Features table of contents
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend
 









about the phoenix |  advertising info |  Webmaster |  work for us
Copyright © 2005 Phoenix Media/Communications Group