Last week, California [1] Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and British [2] Prime Minister Tony Blair signed a mission statement [3] to take "urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote low carbon technologies." Without mentioning specifics, the statement aligns California and the UK in their commitment to use market incentives to foster innovation in emissions trading and low carbon technologies, learn more about "the economics of climate change [4]" and increase communication and collaboration among scientists and technological innovators. While the move sends an important message to President Bush, who has not acted aggressively on this issue, the pact itself is vague and non-binding. Is this just another empty gesture or does this partnership have what it takes to help save the planet?
The Nature of the Partnership
The move is unusual because this collaboration between state and nation bypasses the federal government. Although it is being labeled "largely symbolic [5]" and "welcome hot air [6]," no one is discounting the value of the message it sends to President Bush. Schwarzenegger told reporters [7], "We do not wait for the federal government to act."
These are strong words, referencing Bush's widely unpopular decision to pull the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol [8], an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in 2001. Those nations that signed committed to reduce their emissions to below 1990s levels by 2012. Despite the fact that 168 U.S. city mayors signed the protocol at the June 2005 Conference of Mayors [9], Bush, who has consistently favored voluntary emissions controls over mandatory ones, continues to justify his decision, saying it would cost too many U.S. job
In the long term, the Schwarzenegger/Blair pact has abundant potential for building a climate-saving framework for greenhouse gas reductions through innovation and mandatory emissions caps and trading. However, between now and 2012, its goals are far less quantifiable than those set at Kyoto. For that reason, the pact is more a check-is-in-the-mail style promise than it is the launch of a united front against global warming [9].
Why Now?
While global warming skeptics still exist, and even include the federal government, coverage of the issue has become standard faire in the news media [10]. The success of Al Gore's climate-change film, An Inconvenient Truth [11], (currently the fourth top-grossing documentary film in the U.S.), points to the importance of this issue to the Americans. With the media paying attention and the recent heat wave that has moved across the U.S. and also hit Europe, the announcement of this pact couldn't come at a better time.
In California, the partnership serves to bolster Schwarzenegger's eco-centric campaign message for the November 7th election. Schwarzenegger's critics, including his Democratic opponent, Phil Angelides [12], have a hard time reconciling the Schwarzenegger who was largely responsible for making the Hummer a family car [13] (and has owned seven of them) with the public figure who expresses his commitment to cutting greenhouse gases [13].
Other Schwarzenegger critics have a much more immediate concern. A bill that would cut emissions 25% by 2020 is currently before the state's congress. Passage of the bill would make California a clear leader on the environment. However, environmentalists and democrats are accusing Schwarzenegger of trying to knock the teeth out of the bill by proposing changes that would hinder enforcement and exempt certain companies. These critics see the Blair-Schwarzenegger partnership as diverting attention from the damage being done to a bill that could make a big difference in a state that is the twelfth biggest carbon polluter [14] in the world.
In the U.K., Blair 's popularity has been consistently boosted by his being vocal on this issue [15]. He continues to pressure other world leaders to create a follow-up plan to Kyoto. However, the California partnership will likely drop off the radar quickly in England, where Blair currently faces harsh criticism [16] of his support for Israel's invasion of Lebanon.