by Ray Kopp
November 21, 2005
A "tipping point" occurs when very gradual, perhaps imperceptible change rapidly accelerates without apparent rhyme or reason. The tipping-point concept has its roots in the study of disease epidemics but has been popularized and extended to many other events in a recent book by Malcolm Gladwell.
If tipping points are as common as Gladwell suggests and causal observation confirms, how do you spot one before it "tips"? I'm no expert on tipping-point theory, but snowballing evidence tells me that a tipping point may be coming in climate policy.
Commenting on GE's recently launched EcoImagination initiative, CEO Jeffrey Immelt says that it's good business to develop and sell products that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Cynics may write this off as a public relations campaign, but the company says it will double its research budget to $1.5 billion per year in environmentally friendly products. And the company has said that the country needs a climate policy.
GE is not alone. The CEO of Duke Energy, Paul Anderson, recently called for a mandatory economy-wide carbon tax. Duke Energy is a large integrated natural gas and electric utility. Anderson's announcement comes on the heels of two public reports about climate policy by very large coal-burning electric utilities, American Electric Power (AEP) and Cinergy. The AEP report noted, "Some initial mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions are likely in the next decade." And the Cinergy report states, "We do believe, however, as our CEO Jim Rogers has said, that we eventually will operate our business ‘in a carbon-constrained world' and that it is our responsibility to prepare for that likelihood." The company then lists eight elements such a "well-constructed policy" should have.
Is everyone listening out there? Carbon dioxide (CO2) - emitting electric utilities and their suppliers assume greenhouse gas controls are coming? Some are already serving up ideas about how they might be designed? Admittedly, it's not exactly a torrent of change yet, but the water is rising.
And what about the auto industry and its legendary reluctance to accept mandated fuel economy improvements that would reduce CO2 emissions? That may be a position that comports with U.S. policy, but just this past March auto companies in Canada agreed to voluntarily cut the CO2 emissions from new vehicles sold in Canada by 5.3 million tons by 2010 (representing about a 25 percent increase in fuel economy). Perhaps more importantly, the post-Katrina rise in gasoline prices combined with the fall in large SUV sales just might be altering the Big-3 perceptions of consumer preference for fuel efficiency.
There's more. While federal policy on climate change seems to move at a glacier's pace, states are acting more quickly - for better or worse. The California tailpipe standard for CO2 is the most talked-about development, but there are many others, including an expansive proposal by nine northeastern and mid-Atlantic states to establish a mandatory regional cap-and-trade program for CO2. Called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), it is now gathering considerable momentum.
And then there are growing calls by leaders of conservative Christian groups (core support for the president and Republicans in Congress) to advance more aggressive actions to combat global warming. The leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Reverend Ted Haggard, called the environment a "values issue," and the association is said to be developing a position on climate change that is expected to be a lot greener than that of the president.
So, if electric utilities are not only getting comfortable with prospect of CO2 emissions limitations, but also suggesting what types of policies should be used; the auto industry is negotiating emissions reduction deals with Canada; states are building regional cap-and-trade systems for greenhouse gases; and conservative Christians view protecting the environment as a moral issue - who's left on the other side?
Don't look now, but we're about to tip. Common wisdom among political observers may be that the time is not right for the United States to take more aggressive domestic action on climate change. Or so it would seem. Perhaps just below the surface of our observation and understanding, forces are already at work to tip the balance.
*****
Ray Kopp is a senior fellow at Resources for the Future.
RFF is home to a diverse community of scholars dedicated to improving environmental policy and natural resource management through social science research. Resources for the Future provides objective and independent analysis and encourages scholars to express their individual opinions, which may differ from those of other RFF scholars, officers, and directors. |
