Will the state and local response to climate change be enough without the U.S. in the Paris agreement?
Blue states cannot tackle climate change without the help of red states; luckily some red states seem up to the task
By Janna Brancolini
Last week the G7 environmental ministers met in Bologna, Italy, and issued a joint statement affirming the importance of the Paris agreement — with one notable exception.
“The Environment Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom, and European Commissioners responsible for environment and climate, reaffirm strong commitment to the swift and effective implementation of the Paris Agreement, which remains the global instrument for effectively and urgently tackling climate change and adapting to its effects,” the communiqué stated.
Although the final communiqué is usually issued on behalf of the full G7, noticeably missing this year was the U.S., which took the meeting as an opportunity to reaffirm its plan to withdraw from the landmark international agreement.
In the two weeks since Pres. Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw, U.S. state and local leaders have moved quickly to pledge support for the agreement and vow to continue to meet its targets.
Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown in particular has emerged as a national figure in the local fight against climate change. Once Trump announced his plans to withdraw from the Paris accord, Bologna’s regional president invited Brown to attend the G7 events, saying the region did not intend to lose ground in the fight against climate change on account of Trump’s decision.
But will these local actions be enough to offset the lack of federal action on the part of the world’s largest polluter by historical standards, and second largest emitter of greenhouse gases today?
Local, national and international efforts
In 2015, 196 states agreed to take measures to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, with the agreement entering into force in November 2016. Although the U.S. was originally a signatory to the agreement and played a key role in its negotiation, Trump announced this month that the U.S. would be withdrawing from the landmark accord.
In response, state and local leaders have taken the lead in combating climate change, with Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown emerging as the voice of the “climate rebellion” with the rest of the world.
Brown, together with the governors of New York and Washington state, have launched the U.S. Climate Alliance, a consortium of 13 states that have committed to upholding the Paris Agreement. The mayors of 305 cities have separately pledged the same.
California is also one of the driving forces behind the Compact of States and Regions, an initiative by 62 regional and local governments to support state-level efforts to achieve the Paris accord targets.
These efforts led to a collective exhale among Americans who opposed Trump’s decision to withdraw. But the members of the U.S. Climate Alliance only account for 18.22 % of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And the Compact of States and Regions was intended to supplement state-level Paris efforts, not replace them.
What’s clear is that the only way blue states can meaningfully reduce America’s carbon footprint is by motivating red states to do the same. And given the rampant party divide, experts agree the best chance is economic motivation, not political motivations.
Strategies for growth in renewables
One way to do this is for red and blue states to link energy markets, with blue states agreeing to purchase energy generated by renewable sources in red states. This would incentivize building projects, such as a proposal for the world’s largest wind farm in Wyoming.
The great irony of the U.S. climate debate is that renewable energy has become big business in Trump country and shows no signs of letting up. In his speech announcing withdraw, Trump claimed the Paris agreement would result in “lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.”
In fact, wind power in particular is booming in the Midwestern and Great Plains states that went red in the 2016 Election. Kansas generated more than 30 percent of its power from wind last year and is on track to reach 50 percent in a year or two, the New York Times reported earlier this month. Iowa isn’t far behind. North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma and Wyoming also have robust wind programs.
On the one hand, these numbers are frustrating because they show how utterly disingenuous the Trump administration — and the Republican governors who back it — are on the issue of climate change. Rather than “killing jobs,” renewable energy is a vital part of these Republican states’ economic strategies.
On the other hand, it’s good news for those who care about greenhouse gas reductions, political spin doctoring aside. In fact, the Great Plains figures are actually on par with the liberal coastal states.
New York and California have taken the “50 by ‘30” pledge to generate 50 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2030. California expects to easily meet its goal — even with a very narrow definition of “renewable” that only includes wind and solar — and is considering aiming for 100 percent by 2045.
Red states are not likely to take any environmental pledges, but blue states could help them reach those figures for the good of their economies.
Besides agreeing to buy their electricity, blue states could collaborate with red states to build the necessary power lines faster. This would help red states export — and therefore be incentivized to produce — more clean energy. Kansas alone could supply most of the U.S.’s electricity needs using wind turbines if enough power lines were available to transport it to market, according to the New York Times.
Another strategy is for blue states to serve as “first movers” who try out first-generation green technology and products, and then the rest of the nation can adopt the options that prove to be cost effective.
This would particularly benefit Appalachia and other areas that still rely on fossil fuel for power and employment, according to a recent article in the Harvard Business Review.
Wealthy liberal states would essentially serve as the “guinea pig” consumers for first-generation products, providing an incentive for green innovators to bring prototypes to market.
This begs the question, though: is this fair to the liberal states? Aren’t they essentially being punished for being forward thinking and innovative?
The HBR authors argue that it’s not a question of fairness, but of comparative advantage, the same concept that drives international trade. Comparative advantage says that production is not driven by absolute costs, but by relative opportunity costs among various producers.
Here, the comparative advantage derives from the “geographic logic” of the U.S. political divide on climate change.
Simply put, red states tend to be hit harder by environmental policies because the vast majority of states that went blue in the 2016 Election already have CO2 emissions below the national average. Employment in blue states also tends to be dominated by low-energy-intensity industries such as tech and finance.
Red states, meanwhile, are more likely to rely on extraction and manufacturing for employment, and their residents are more likely to live in suburban and rural areas. These are energy intensive lifestyles by default because buildings are spread out, public transportation is less accessible, and residents are more reliant on fossil fuels. These areas also tend to have fewer local employment centers, coupled with lower overall incomes.
All of this means that conservative areas will pay a higher price — financial, employment and lifestyle — for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So if urban liberals are also wealthier on top of everything else, why shouldn’t they purchase green products if they can afford the up-front costs of subsidizing new technologies?
These arguments are based on the assumption that human ingenuity and more technology — not less — can solve the climate problem. The government just needs to incentivize this creativity so it can come to market, the thinking goes.
Whether the solution is new technology, greener public works, or a combination of the two, one thing is for certain — red states and blue states will have to realize these solutions together, regardless of their respective motives for doing so.
Sign up to receive Kheiro straight to your inbox, and be sure to follow us on Facebook.
