Beyond Cheney's History of Climatic Evolution

Despite an infuriatingly recalcitrant [1] EPA chief and an administration that has suppressed [2] major climate change research for the last four years, global warming is once again at the top of the nation’s policy agenda. The EPA’s denial [3] of California’s application to impose stricter vehicle emissions standards late last year provoked a strong reaction from environmental groups and the debate was again stoked by the administration’s release last Thursday of research [4] confirming human influence on global warming.

Though to most of us – including [5] the U.S. Climate Change Science Program that authored the report – this is no great revelation [6], such an outright statement from an office under this administration’s control is somewhat astounding, particularly given Vice President Cheney’s unique interpretation of the Earth’s climatic evolution. As the first EPA administrator under the current President Bush, Christine Whitman [7], described [8], “The consequences of climate change are very real and very negative, but Cheney is not convinced of that. He believes…that the Earth has been changing since it was formed and to say that climate change is caused by humans is incorrect.” In contrast, the new report [9] from the Climate Change Science Program affirms, “Studies that rigorously quantify the effect of different external influences on observed changes…conclude that most of the recent global warming is very likely due to human-generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Yet, Vice President Cheney has, as The Washington Post reported [10], shaped an administration policy more concerned with protecting business interests than following environmental law. Ever concerned with the wellbeing of the American public, he has worried out loud [11] about the dangers of just “sort of run[ning] out and try[ing] to slap together some policy that’s going to ‘solve’ the problem.” Better to see how things play out, of course.

In response to the EPA’s denial of California’s waiver application, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson [12] emphasized [3] President Bush’s desire to employ “a clear national solution” to fight climate change, rather than “a confusing patchwork of state rules.” Indeed, President Bush signed into law a bil [13]l to impose stricter national fuel efficiency standards, though at levels lower than those proposed by California. Currently, however, he is threatening to veto [14] the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act [15] – now being debated in the Senate – that would establish a cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions. So much for a clear national solution.

But this devious maneuvering and self-interested denial is old news. What is new to the debate about human-induced climate change comes from a Brookings Institution report [16] released last Thursday – the same day as the Climate Change Science Program’s report – that attempts to quantify the disparate carbon emissions impact of metropolitan areas throughout the United States. The research finds that “metro area residents have smaller carbon footprints than the average American.” Indeed, carbon emissions increased more slowly in metro America than in the rest of the country between 2000 and 2005.

That metro areas have smaller carbon footprints is not necessarily a great surprise, as one would expect densely populated metro areas to have a smaller per capita emissions footprint. Smaller living spaces, shared walls, and the proximity of workplaces all intuitively suggest less reliance on carbon-emitting energy sources. Yet, the great variation in the carbon footprint of urban areas demonstrates a more interesting and more important point: the population density created by cities is a necessary starting point for reducing emissions, but a host of other factors contribute to a diverse range of urban emissions levels (at least one of these factors, the weather, is out of humankind’s control, at least for now [17]). As the report states, “Residential density and the availability of public transit are important to understanding carbon footprints, as are the carbon intensity of electricity generation, electricity prices, and weather.”

For instance, the extent of reliance on “dirty” energy sources like coal affects the size of carbon footprints. This means that the carbon emissions from residential buildings are much greater in the Ohio Valley and the Appalachian regions – Lexington [18] ranks 99th out of the 100 cities analyzed – than in Seattle, which “draws its energy primarily from essentially carbon-free hydropower.” Rail transit ridership is also significant. New York, with its substantial transit system, ranks best on the list of emissions from transportation. Further, weather is a significant determinant of a metro area’s carbon footprint. Areas that rely on heating and air conditioning tend to have larger residential carbon footprints, while “the 10 metropolitan areas with the smallest per capita residential footprints are all located along the West Coast, with its milder climate.”

The Brookings report is significant because it both confirms the importance of cities as solutions to the challenges presented by climate change and, at the same time, suggests possible action to confront these challenges. The report emphasizes that the federal government must leverage gains made at the local level and step in where policies in different metro areas work at cross-purposes. This means that

the federal government should lead more decisively on matters such as correcting market failures, setting standards, and exchanging information. Its role in transportation should more strongly incorporate energy-efficiency and climate mitigation as important decisionmaking criteria while also reforming policies that presently favor energy-intensive modes over efficient ones. Similarly, the federal government should leverage its role in shaping the nation’s housing market by making energy an important component of its information disclosure, investment, and finance policies.

The Brookings report reminds us of the role that metropolitan areas can play in addressing climate change and its attendant challenges. Congress – and President Bush – should keep this in mind as they debate climate change legislation before recessing for the summer.