One thing that I've been saying a lot lately about state level climate change policy* is "sure, each individual policy won't have much effect but (a) the cumulative effect might amount to something and (b) this is how the federal response to air and water came about. The latter point is more important. As I remember it, I was about seven years old in 1970, the Clean Air Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (i.e., Clean Water Act) came about partly in response to piecemeal and ineffective state air and water laws. I'm guessing the state level climate change policies are helping to put pressure on the feds.
I haven't heard this from anyone else and I've been wondering if I'm out on a limb. I wonder no more.
In the lead to the NYT's article on New Jersey's new climate change policy:
If only the Bush administration and Congress would follow the example set by some of the country’s more imaginative and innovative state governments, we might finally begin to get a handle on global warming.
New Jersey is the latest state to join the parade. Alarmed, perhaps, by predictions that much of the New Jersey shore could disappear if temperatures and oceans continued to rise, the Legislature, backed by Gov. Jon Corzine, last month set perhaps the most aggressive limits of any state on greenhouse-gas emissions.
By 2020, emissions must drop 13 percent, to about 1990 levels, and by 2050, they will have to be capped at 80 percent below 2006 levels. Even California, a leader in the climate change battle, has imposed restrictions only through 2020. New Jersey’s legislation covers not just motor vehicle emissions, but those from power plants and refineries.
Yes, we know the arguments by business and other critics that one state alone cannot do much to reduce global warming, that New Jersey’s measure is largely symbolic. But symbolism is important, especially when it highlights Washington’s passive response to the problem. It is fair to say that the growing sense of urgency about climate change in statehouses across the country was one of several factors that persuaded the United States Senate to pass the first major improvement in automobile fuel- efficiency standards since 1975.
...
By passing the legislation by wide margins, Trenton roundly rejected the head-in-the sand argument of some business groups that the state should not take a leadership role on global warming because it might drive industry and high-paying jobs to other states. That is a potential risk. But it is also another reason why Washington should establish a national program. Until it does, states like New Jersey have no alternative but to lead the way.
New Jersey is also in the ...
... Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a work in progress involving nine other Northeastern states aimed at reducing regional power plant emissions 10 percent by 2019. The initiative would also establish a cap-and-trade system in which polluters that cut their emissions below standards can sell pollution rights to companies that do not.
Note: In the past we've called this climate federalism. For example, North Carolina is all set to mandate 10%+ renewable fuel use by power plants (more on the inefficiency of this policy when it comes out).
