Energy, Environment and Resources Center

Jack Barkenbus EERC Executive Director

FROM THE DIRECTOR………

Is the United States a Laggard?

Much of the world currently perceives the United States as a laggard in terms of its response to pressing environmental challenges as well as its commitment to sustainable development. This is in striking contrast to the United States’ reputation as a pioneer of the modern environmental movement, having led the way in establishing the kinds of laws, institutions, and regulatory processes that have subsequently been widely adopted throughout the world.

There is certainly some justification for the current perception, with this country’s tepid response to climate change, its unwillingness either to tax transportation fuels at full costs or to require stricter fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles, and its reluctance to establish ambitious targets for the utilization of renewable fuels.

But is this perception valid? If we look solely at actions (or lack thereof) emanating from the federal government, it seems right on target. Environmentalists are now primarily engaged in fighting rollbacks to existing laws and policies rather than advancing new initiatives. And there has been no successor created to the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, which was terminated in the mid-1990s. But in recognition of our system of federalism, one must look below the federal level and also evaluate state and local activities. When we do so, we see a much more mixed picture.

Many of the most-populous states, such as California, Oregon, and Washington on the West Coast; Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa in the Midwest; and New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts in the Northeast, are not following the national agenda. And these are not insignificant political entities on an international scale. If California were a nation-state, its economy would be the sixth largest in the world. New York would be the eighth largest. The fact that these states are moving forward environmentally belies the notion that little of significance is happening in the United States. Recent examples of state-level action include:

Twelve states have renewable energy portfolio standards (RPSs) mandating that a certain percentage of the state’s electricity come from renewable energy sources. Some states are requiring state agencies to purchase a percentage of their energy from this “green power,” and some states also allow for general tax write-offs on the consumer purchase of renewable energy systems.

At least a dozen states have taken action to mitigate climate change, even in the absence of a national imperative. California is one of the dozen, and, again, if California were a nation-state, it would be the 13th largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.

Several states are placing strict limits on electric utility emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. They are also establishing minimum energy-efficiency standards for consumer appliances not covered by national standards.

States such as Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maine, and Oregon have all passed or considered state legislation promoting product-stewardship initiatives.

It is also not difficult to find American cities that are moving out front on sustainability issues. A recent book by Kent Portney, Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously (MIT Press, 2003), identifies 31 major cities that have declared sustainability initiatives. Many of these cities are implementing indicator efforts, putting in place smart-growth/transportation infrastructure, and promoting energy efficiency. The eight cities that get special attention in the book are Austin, TX; Boulder, CO; Chattanooga, TN; Jacksonville, FL; Portland, OR; Santa Monica, CA; San Francisco, CA; and Seattle, WA.

The purpose of the book is not to measure whether sustainability is being accomplished (too early, says the author), but rather to measure which of the cities seem really serious about the undertaking. Alas, the measurement system employed in the book is ultimately unconvincing, but the questions being asked are on target.

Hence, whether the United States can accurately be labeled a laggard, when there is considerable sub-national activity stirring, remains an open question. Certainly those who casually use the label have reason to pause. It very well may be that learning and activity can be spurred more effectively through “horizontal” interactions rather than through a “vertical” process driven by the federal government.

We at the Energy, Environment and Resources Center certainly do not feel that our time and efforts are being wasted when working with city and state governments. In fact, some of our most satisfying work comes from this activity, whether it be contract research, membership on statewide committees, or participation in local, multi-stakeholder initiatives. While greater federal-level activism would be preferable, no one is simply waiting for direction from Washington, DC. Progress may not be taking place in leaps and bounds, but the infrastructure for sustainable development is being built one step at a time.