Focus on climate change

Environmental Vision and Progress: Letter from Ambassador Graber

April 22 is Earth Day and I would like to take this opportunity to stress that the United States is firmly committed to taking action on climate change, at home and abroad.

America has been cast as the global villain on climate change, and Europe the knight in shining armor—the Kyoto Protocol its sword.   We can only make progress in meeting the real challenges by separating fact from fiction.  Let me start with a few clear statements about U.S. thinking and policy.

·         Americans care deeply about the environment.
·         The Bush Administration is deeply concerned about the challenge of global climate change.
·         We agree that human activity contributes to global warming.
·         We are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
·         We have made tremendous investments aimed at reducing emissions, both at home an abroad.
·         Our efforts to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are producing results that stand up to those of any nation in the world.

It is often said that the United States is the world’s largest emitter of CO₂.  That is true, but it would be surprising if we weren’t.  With 5% of the world population we produce 25% of global wealth.  We run by far the largest economy, so it only makes sense that we’re the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. 

The important thing is what direction we’re going; the important thing is the trend line.  According to data from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, for the period from 2000 to 2004 – the latest period for which the UN has produced good, comparative data – U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by 0.8 percent.  Yes, this is an increase, but a modest one, and smaller than the 1.4 percent per year experienced in the 1990s.
The EU-25 increased collective emissions in this same 2000-2004 time period by 2.1%.  That was also modest, but a higher increase than ours.

The important metric to consider is emissions per unit of GDP.  This so-called “greenhouse gas intensity” allows us to compare apples to apples.  As an example, if we simply compared the U.S. economy to that of Luxembourg, absolutes to absolutes, we would come away with the impression that the U.S. is many times wealthier.  When we do it the right way, comparing on a per capita basis, we realize that, actually, the Grand Duchy is wealthier.

So what has been happening with greenhouse gas intensity?  Well, that of the U.S. dropped by 7.5% in 2000-2004.  The EU’s intensity fell, too – by 4.5%.  again, less than in the U.S.

These comparisons give us a fuller picture of America’s progress in the quest for a clean environment, a picture that is shorn of hyperbole and myths. 
But how did we achieve these goals?  Through a combination of efforts, both in the public and private sectors.

First, let me make some news here.  The U.S. government has already implemented both caps and targets.

Already back in 2001, President Bush had set a target of an 18% reduction in the greenhouse gas intensity for the U.S. economy by 2012 – and we are well on track to achieving that target.  And in his recent State of the Union address, the President set out additional targets, such as cutting U.S. gasoline consumption by 20% off of projected 2017 levels – 20% in 10 years.  That will be a net decrease even from today’s levels, and the equivalent of taking 26 million cars off the road.

I only said this is news because, well, U.S. government action to make the environment cleaner is never in newspapers or television.

There is another important reason we’re performing well: the private sector has gotten involved.  Just as in all things in America, the U.S. federal government is only one part of the story.

Our investment bankers report a huge “second wave” of investing in technologies to reduce emissions and in alternative sources of fuel, after the first wave in the 1980s.  The hard money people in the United States are looking at solar plant grids, solar batteries and wind energy, and how to make them price competitive.  They are especially looking “smart building” technology which significantly reduce the energy a building consumes.

American venture capital firms are also putting money into big bets on cellulosic ethanol, which could become cost-competitive with corn-based ethanol in perhaps less than two years.  Cellulosic ethanol is similar to corn-based ethanol, but is made with grass clippings, tree branches and other residential green waste, meaning it is not competing with feed corn.

The private sector’s involvement gives us reason to be hopeful.  The fact that clean technology produces profits means that we will have clean technology.

As a famous European once said, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” As Adam Smith made clear, capitalism has no rival in its ability to provide us with dinner, and there is no more powerful force around that can bring us a cleaner environment.

It will take all of us working together—the governments, the market, civil society—to break the link between economic activity and greenhouse gas emissions.  We are already well on our way.