Reversing climate-change denial

02/02/2009
By Joe Nation

What a difference one week makes.

After six years of stubborn denials and ignorance of scientific consensus, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is poised to allow California to require new cars and trucks to emit fewer reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

President Obama’s order to the EPA to review California’s request on “tailpipe emissions” reverses an absurd position held by the Bush Administration. Under the Clean Air Act, and because of it’s historic air pollution problems, California is able to set cleaner air standards than other states. In order to enact these higher standards, California must request an EPA waiver, and the EPA must then grant the waiver.

But Bush’s EPA director, Stephen Johnson, for the first time in the Clean Air Act’s 40 year history, rejected California’s request. In doing so, he overruled both his legal and technical staff. Obama’s order requires only a review, but it is clear that the EPA will grant California’s request.

Why is this waiver so important? Three reasons. First, unlike many other states, the largest share of greenhouse gases come from transportation. In California, more than 40% of total emissions come from transportation. In the North Bay, that share is more than 60%. In order to meet the legal requirements of Assembly Bill 32 (i.e., a reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to 1990 levels), California will need a broad-based approach to reducing greenhouse gases, including utilities, landfills, agriculture, and transportation in particular.

Second, as California goes, so goes the nation (at least on the environment, it seems). Currently, thirteen other states have adopted California’s stricter standard, and four more have indicated that they will soon do the same. In fact, California’s Air Resources Board, which is implementing AB 32, reports that more than one-half of the world’s population lives in countries with vehicle emissions standards modeled after California’s air quality laws.

Finally, science suggests that we are running out of time in our fight against global warming. For example, just last week, NASA reported (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090121) that the Antarctic Peninsula, which just one year ago seemed to be immune to the effects of climate change, is now warming. Global greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, rising by about two percent last year. Developing country emissions are projected to exceed those in the developed world by about 2015. And for all the talk about action at the local, state, and national levels, U.S. emissions have increased in most years since 2000.

The bill that set these events in motion, AB 1493, was introduced in January 2001, more than eight years ago by then Assemblymember Fran Pavley. When I had the opportunity and privilege to co-author and vote for AB 1493 in 2002, the public was only beginning to wake up to the potentially disastrous effects from global warming. The danger today is that the public is once again asleep, not necessarily because of doubts about global warming, but because the economic crisis has taken center stage.

One thing is certain. If we as a nation take eight years to introduce, debate, and enact meaningful climate change laws, the planet we leave to our children will look far different from today. Obama’s decision to grant a waiver for cleaner California cars is significant, and it is movement in the right direction. But without further actions to reduce emissions globally—and to do so aggressively and immediately—we will look back at Obama’s move as only one more small step in a losing battle.

Joe Nation represented Marin and Sonoma counties in the state Assembly from 2000-2006. He now teaches climate change and health care policy at Stanford University.