Original links are included though some may have expired.

During the 1990s, states opposed to U.S. ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change feared that even if the Senate scuttled our participation in the treaty, pro-Kyoto forces in the Clinton administration would try to implement it via the "back door" through federal regulation.

Now, with the Bush administration solidly anti-Kyoto and the treaty in limbo amid questions about Russia's intentions toward it, state supporters of action against climate change are advancing policies to fight it, in many cases with initiatives that downplay or don't even mention "greenhouse gases" or "global warming." It turns out there is a back door to fighting climate change after all. But the door is in the heartland, not Washington.

The relationship between Washington and states on climate change has changed dramatically since the late 1990s. Between 1998 and 1999, when U.S. participation in the Kyoto process was still on the table, 16 states that felt they had more to lose than gain in the fight against climate change passed laws or resolutions that opposed the treaty's ratification. Most of the measures were symbolic but a few were quite tough. Michigan lawmakers voted to "prevent state agencies from proposing or promulgating any rule to reduce greenhouse gases unless it had been requested by the legislature," notes Barry Rabe, professor of environmental policy at the University of Michigan. Similarly, West Virginia legislators adopted a measure preventing state agencies from cooperating with federal counterparts to address greenhouse gas emissions.

The change in presidential administrations in 2000 ushered in a change in federal climate policy. Shortly after assuming office President Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from negotiations to ratify the Kyoto treaty and reversed his campaign pledge to impose mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions by U.S. power plants. Those moves, in turn, flipped the axis of state policy. States that felt they had plenty to gain by fighting climate change began taking the initiative. Since January 2000, approximately one-third of the states have passed laws and executive orders "expressly intended to reduce greenhouse gases," according to Rabe. In addition, elected officials and environmental groups in many states have launched a low-intensity battle against climate change through programs that emphasize economic development, energy efficiency, conservation, and cleaner fuels and vehicles.

Two noteworthy "front door" efforts began to take shape in the states during the past half year. In the spring and summer of 2003, states in the Northeast and along the West Coast announced they were banding together to cut carbon dioxide emissions. The Northeast regional strategy focuses on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants while the West Coast effort focuses on stemming emissions from the transportation sector. On the West Coast in particular, governors have portrayed climate change as a grave threat to the region's forests, fisheries, and coastlines and argue that aggressive action is an economic imperative.

In other states, the fight against climate change is being promoted as means of exploiting potentially lucrative economic opportunities. In 2000 for example, Nebraska's unicameral legislature created a panel to study the potential economic benefits of trapping carbon in the ground through improved agricultural techniques and other land-use practices. Farmers, foresters, oil drillers, and others who engage in such practices could potentially sell their "sequestered" carbon on the open market to businesses participating in "cap and trade" programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Nebraska example directly influenced the introduction of similar legislation in Alaska this past year. Illinois, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wyoming have passed what Rabe calls "strikingly similar" versions of the Nebraska bill. Versions have also been introduced in the Idaho and South Dakota legislatures.

The success of sequestration programs like Nebraska's hinge on setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions and creating commodities markets for trade in emission permits as well as credits for activities that keep greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. In January 2003, 13 of the nation's largest greenhouse gas emitters joined with the City of Chicago to establish such a cap and trade market, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). The participants pledged to voluntarily cut their emissions by 4 percent from an average of their 1998-2001 emissions, or between 50 and 60 million tons, by 2006. CCX is widely viewed as a pilot test for a future national cap and trade system.

Other states, meanwhile, are promoting wind power and other renewable energy sources more as economic development tools than as weapons in the fight against climate change. The New York Times recently reported that at least 15 states, including Texas and Nevada, are forcing their state electric utilities to diversify beyond coal and oil to energy sources like wind and solar power. In 2003, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack signed legislation clearing the way for a 310-megawatt wind farm in the state -- the largest such land-based facility in the world. Iowa now imports nearly all of its energy from out of state at a cost of more than $4 billion annually. Vilsack's goal is to make Iowa not only energy independent through wind power but a net exporter of energy to neighboring states. Meanwhile, the lobbying group U.S. PIRG Education Fund issued a report in 2002 noting that the wind that blows in just four states -- North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska -- is enough to meet the electricity needs of the entire country. PIRG has been working aggressively to demonstrate to Plains states their enormous potential to harness wind power to produce energy and jobs while helping the environment.

Other states, particularly those hit hard by the lagging economy, have latched onto energy efficiency as a way to stretch taxpayer dollars and fight climate change at the same time. Under the leadership of Gov. Janet Napolitano, Arizona legislators in April 2003 required state agencies, universities, and community colleges to cut their energy use by 15 percent below 2001-2002 levels by July 2011. They also required the agencies and higher-education institutions to buy only federal "Energy Star" compliant products or others certified under the Federal Energy Management Program and to adhere to the International Energy Conservation Code in new construction. The measure is expected to carve about $90 million off the state's energy bills. The Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, a public interest group that helped shape the Arizona bill, is promoting similar legislative efforts in the region, as is PIRG's Florida affiliate in that state.

State and local initiatives to stem sprawl, steer new construction into areas that are already developed, and provide alternatives to auto travel have also emerged as one of the most promising oblique attacks on climate change. In the 2000 elections, voters approved 72 percent of 553 state and local ballot measures on growth management -- most of which were not sold to voters as a way to fight a global environmental menace but rather as a way to improve quality of life close to home. States are also reducing greenhouse gas emissions by passing bills to promote cleaner fuels and cleaner cars. The degree to which state climate change efforts now go through the back door is underscored by the fact that most state clean air bills introduced and passed in 2003 promoted the development and use of alternative fuels and vehicles that run on them.

State initiatives like these hold enormous potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they are no substitute for aggressive federal action. And sadly, Washington is retarding and in some cases impeding state efforts to tackle the problem. For example, carbon sequestration programs such as Nebraska's and regional cap and trade programs like the one being considered by the consortium of Northeast states are unlikely to gather steam unless Congress sets mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions -- and the Senate rejected just such a measure in the fall of 2003. Also, in August 2003 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dealt a severe blow to California's attempt to regulate carbon dioxide emissions by cars and trucks by ruling that states lack sufficient legal authority under the Clean Air Act to do so. EPA's ruling not only jeopardizes the California program but also undermines efforts of states such as New York, where legislators introduced a bill patterned after California's in 2003.

Public outrage over burning rivers and killer smog three decades ago helped prod the White House and Congress to finally pass major federal environmental laws such as the clean air and water acts. Climate change, however, is largely an invisible phenomenon and has yet to disrupt the daily lives of most Americans. The public isn't clamoring for Congress to act. Unfortunately, by the time greenhouse gases accumulate in Earth's upper atmosphere to the point at which their effects create public outcry, policymakers will find it difficult, if not impossible, to respond effectively.

Many state leaders realize this and are beginning to move into action, even if it means implementing policy through the back door. Hopefully, Washington will get the message as well before it's too late.

Resources for Action:

Progressive Policy Institute's State Clean Air Exchange
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=251290
&knlgareaid=116&subsecid=900039

Additional Reading:

Multi-state climate change actions:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116
&subsecID=900039&contentID=252226

State carbon sequestration activities:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116
&subsecID=900039&contentID=252026
and:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116
&subsecID=900039&contentID=252223

Carbon emission markets:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116
&subsecID=900039&contentID=252027

State wind power initiatives:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116
&subsecID=900039&contentID=251288

State energy efficiency initiatives:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116
&subsecID=900039&contentID=252221

State and local "smart growth" initiatives:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116
&subsecID=900039&contentID=252224

State clean-car initiatives:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116
&subsecID=900039&contentID=251286

"Generating Solutions: How Clean, Renewable Energy Is Boosting Local Economies and Saving Consumers Money." U.S. PIRG Education Fund. April 2003:
http://www.newenergyfuture.com/newenergy.asp?id2=9634