California Has Set a Goal--Now Let's Step Up to the Plate

September 6th, 2006 at 12:00pm Michael Brylawski 133

Last week, the California Global Warming Solutions Act mandated emissions reductions of 25% by 2020 for the state. It will achieve it through a "cap n' trade," a combination of creating hard "caps" of greenhouse gasses with innovative, market-based trading mechanisms that has worked very well to reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions in the midwest.

Where do we stand in Aspen? Two years ago we took a bold initiative to become a leader in showcasing the benefits of a renewable-intensive, energy-efficient future. We took a detailed inventory of our emissions, and have brought together public institutions, nonprofits, and local businesses to work on the problem. We have a good leader, Dan Richardson, running the effort, and dedicated funding to the program.

But in the process--we forgot to set a goal!

According to the Canary Initiative's draft action plan available on its website, "...Aspen made a commitment to reduce community-wide emissions when the Mayor signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement; however no community goal has ever been set. So the initial step in instituting this action plan will be for the community to set a reduction goal for greenhouse gas emissions."

Well, a state with 34 million people (over five thousand times the population of Aspen), with a $1.5 trillion economy (that would place it 6th in the world if it were a country), with a Hummer-driving Republican governor (well, one of his many Hummers is hydrogen-powered), heck, whose most famous residents now are Lindsay Lohan and Suri Cruise, was able to set a goal. And an aggressive goal to boot.

California is bypassing the typical Cassandras who scream "too expensive" and going full force. For those who ask: Will this be bad for the economy? The state is replying: I don't know...was Google bad for the California economy? A big proponent of this measure was prominent venture capitalist and primary Google backer John Doerr, who in a piece supporting the legislation in Time Magazine said "Going green may be the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century. It is the mother of all markets. Going green is the next big thing."

Dan Richardson in the article for Denver Post addressed the lack of a goal. "We're about twice the U.S. average in greenhouse gases per capita, so it says to me we need to work on all sectors," said Richardson, manager of Aspen's 18-month old Global Warming Project, a multimillion-dollar effort to think globally but act locally. "How aggressive should we be? This is a tough question because we don't know."

Well, we have a benchmark: 25% by 2020 in California. If Aspen is indeed twice the US average, and assuming California is about the US average, then a pretty clear goal emerges: 50% by 2020.

Cutting our emissions in half (either through directly reducing them, or in the cap n' trade scheme buying offsets or funding off-site carbon sinks) now puts us on par with California. Either we step up to the plate or change the name of the Canary Initiative. If we don't set a clear goal soon, I think Dodo Initiative may be more appropriate.

Entry Filed under: Environment, Aspen, Pitkin County