What’s the State of Global Warming Restrictions?

As the election recedes and the New Year approaches, many Americans are wondering what 2005 will hold on the critical issue of global climate change.

When Russia surprisingly ratified the Kyoto Protocol this fall, it revitalized efforts to limit energy use and emissions. President Bush rejected Kyoto in 2001 because it would have cost America $300 billion annually according to reporting by United for Jobs, and many thought that the treaty was doomed. However, there’s sure to be renewed interest with Russia’s approval of CO2 emissions limitations, and these regulations would be disastrous for our economy.

Kyoto is now set to take effect on February 16th due to Russia’s ratification. Although the only major industrialized nations that have not ratified are the United States and Australia, most of the so-called developing world, including world-class competitors like Mexico, China, and India, are not a part of Kyoto and are not even part of the discussion. Additionally, Kyoto expires in 2012, and a number of nations are trying to get the United States on board for an even stricter CO2 emissions regime. A group of Arctic nations are already criticizing the president for rejecting Kyoto.

Despite the fact that in 1997 the Senate rejected global warming policies that exclude developing nations and harm the U.S. economy (Kyoto does both) by a vote of 95-0 (S. Res. 98) the issue is very much alive here in the United States. At the federal level, Sens. McCain and Lieberman introduced The Climate Stewardship Act (S.139), which would severely cut energy emissions by capping CO2 emissions at 2000 levels by 2010, costing the American economy $106 billion. Fortunately, the bill was not voted on and was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Yet Sen. McCain held a hearing on global warming on November 16th, where he attacked the Bush administration’s position on global warming. The president continues to oppose Kyoto, but says he wants to focus on domestic plans that include researching alternative forms of energy.

As the debate rages on in Washington, individual states are taking action to limit CO2 emissions on their own, creating a backdoor for possible Kyoto-style regulations. California has already adopted rules to regulate car emissions linked to global warming, adding an estimated $3,000 to the price of every car according to manufacturers. The Golden State also joined with Oregon and Washington to create another group called the West Coast Governor’s global warming initiative.

Perhaps the biggest move towards regulation is in the Northeast. Nine states in the region (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont) formed The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia are observers in the process. The organization, started by Governor Pataki, aims to enact a cap-and-trade program for power plants in the region. Their goal is to have a program designed by 2005 that allots emissions credits to power providers that they can buy or sell to each other. RGGI plans on regulating other sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions in the future.

What’s more, some states are also turning towards legal action to limit CO2 emissions. Attorneys general from eight states (California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin) as well as New York City filed a public nuisance lawsuit against five parties because of greenhouse gases (American Electric Power Co., Southern Co., Xcel Energy, Cinergy, and the Federal Tennessee Valley Authority). They make up about 10 percent of America’s CO2 emissions. These junk lawsuits are an attempt to use the courts to address an issue that should be dealt with by the legislature. If the suits are successful, America may face a de facto CO2 emissions regime.

Surely, these state-level initiatives will hurt businesses nationally. One RGGI official said that state-level initiatives create calls for federal regulation, comparing their effort to national nitrogen oxide emissions. Businesses may even push for national limits because of the costs of complying with a patchwork quilt of state regulations. Some businesses are even voluntarily limiting their CO2 emissions in order to comply with anticipated state level regulation and avoid legal action. At some point, these companies may call for mandatory standards, which would impose new costs on their rivals.

This backdoor approach to regulation would certainly slow American growth and give the state more control over the private sector. Carbon dioxide restrictions would drastically increase the cost of energy, which goes into every good produced. That’s why FreedomWorks is fighting alongside other grassroots organizations like United for Jobs against these initiatives, state by state, and supports including all major producers of CO2 in any and all international discussions.