Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Cited by 3
  • Print publication year: 2005
  • Online publication date: September 2009

7 - Climate change policy viewed from the USA and the role of intensity targets

Summary

Introduction

With the very emphatic withdrawal of the Bush Administration from the Kyoto Protocol, it might appear that there is no US policy on climate change. This view is reinforced by the 2002 Valentine's Day announcement from the Bush Administration that the cornerstone of its climate policy was to set a goal to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the US economy by 18 percent over the coming decade; never mind that this was roughly the rate at which the economy had been “de-carbonizing” over the previous decade.

But politicians come and go. This is particularly true in the case of climate change. It was President Bush's father who participated in the setting up of the treaty underlying the Kyoto Protocol, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and no doubt climate policy will outlive the current President Bush. Furthermore, there is other positive activity on climate change in the United States, though relatively modest. There are federal government programs, mostly in research and development, as well as activities by state governments, private parties, and non-governmental organizations.

In this chapter we provide a review of the assorted actions that are being taken in the United States to deal with the climate change problem. The review is by no means comprehensive – just indicative of the types of activities that are under way. In addition, we consider some of the remaining problems that are not addressed by Kyoto, problems which must be addressed regardless of whether Kyoto becomes effective.

References
Framework Convention on Climate Change “Online searchable database of greenhouse gas inventory data” (http://ghg.unfccc.int/).
Jones, B., Monash, N., Bubenick, D., and Vaurio, K. 2002. Survey and Evaluation of State-Level Activities and Programs Related to Climate Change. Prepared for Natural Resources Defense Council. Boston: M. J. Bradley & Associates.
Kopp, R. J., Morgenstern, R. D., and Pizer, W. 1997. Something for Everyone: A Climate Policy that Both Environmentalists and Industry Can Live With. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
McKibbon, W. J., and Wilcoxen, P. J. 1997. A Better Way to Slow Global Climate Change. Brookings Institution Policy Brief 17, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
National Academy of Sciences 1992. Automobile Fuel Economy: How Far Can We Go? Washington, DC: National Research Council.
National Academy of Sciences2002. Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
NESCAUM (Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management) (http://www.nescaum.org/).
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) 2004. National Accounts of OECD Countries, Main Aggregates, vol. I, 1991–2002. Paris (http://www.oecd.org/document/28//document/39/0,2340,en_2649_34245_1914151_1_1_1_1,00.html).
Rabe, B. G. 2002. Greenhouse & Statehouse: The Evolving State Government Role in Climate Change. Washington, DC: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Roberts, M. J., and Spence, M. 1976. “Effluent charges and licenses under uncertainty,” Journal of Public Economics 5: 193–208.
Victor, D. G. 2001a. “Piety at Kyoto didn't cool the planet,” New York Times (March 23).
Victor, D. G. 2001b. Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Control Global Warming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.