Environmental Law

Economic Uncertainty Prompts Calls to Stay the Green Course

By Dennis Pfaff and Kevin Livingston, Editors

As the worldwide economy does its frightening impression of a bungee jumper who might -- or might not -- be attached to an actual bungee cord, it's probably no wonder there are a lot of different ideas of what this is all going to mean for renewable energy and efforts to tackle climate change.

Just the other day, for instance, there was a report in the San Francisco Chronicle that progress in the United States toward curbing greenhouse gas emissions, derailed this year in Congress, could again stall as a byproduct of the economic situation. The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital, meanwhile, postulated that economic woes could put sand in the gears of the European Union's plans to tackle climate change because of worries there "that adding extra cost to business during a downturn will be suicidal."

But powerful voices have also emerged with a much different message: That to delay or forego environmental protection -- including progress toward controlling climate change and beefing up renewable energy -- would be wrong-headed.

One of those messengers was California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who made a surprise visit to a big solar power conference in San Diego to preach the gospel of green energy. It's a point that readers of Climate Law Update know he's made before and Monday he made it again, according to Fortune's Green Wombat: 
 

"We should not give in to those who say environmental goals should take a back seat until the economy improves. That's short-sighted thinking. Tough economic times mean we need more solar, more green jobs."    

Just Tuesday, an organization that bills itself as the world's oldest and largest environmental network, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, emerged with its own call for pushing forward with deep cuts in greenhouse gases by 2050, in the face of current economic uncertainty. The group, while saying heat-trapping gases should be cut by up to 85 percent over that time, also endorsed steps that would reduce emissions from deforestation and called on governments to regulate biofuels to limit their impact on people and nature. The cost of some environmental impacts, according to the group's statement, may exceed those of the world's financial woes.

The group, which just wrapped up a huge meeting in Barcelona, also released a list of significant financial and policy commitments, including those aimed directly at climate change, that private groups and government have made recently.

Said Julia Marton-Lefevre (pictured), who heads the organization, which includes members from governments, conservation groups and scientific organizations:

"We’re showing how saving nature must be an integral part of the solution for any world crisis. The clear message coming out of this meeting is that biodiversity underpins the well-being of human societies and their economies. But conservation can only succeed if we attack the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, and action is taken at the same time to reduce the impacts of that loss.”

And then there was also word from Reuters that the European Union's own environment chief was defending proposals to cut greenhouse gases via an emissions trading scheme. The news service reported that some countries have expressed concerns that their economies could be harmed. According to the dispatch, EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told reporters:

"We think this (climate) package is consistent with solving the financial crisis... At the moment, people are focused on the economic crisis, but our package is part of the solution."

Dimas drew a direct connection between fighting climate change investing in "energy efficiency, promoting renewable sources and providing incentives to stimulate the economy and contribute to growth." 

The debate, of course, isn't a new one. It raged particularly hotly during the Congressional deliberations. Environmentalists clashed with the Bush administration over whether such legislation would boost the economy. Some also argued that doing nothing would prove economically counter-productive. Meanwhile, businesses emphasized the costs of putting a price on carbon emissions, as the bill would have done. 

Schwarzenegger, according to an account of his San Diego presentation from CNET News, laid out his notion of the future in somewhat less abstract terms:

"I can envision going on a helicopter and seeing no more warehouses without solar panels."

--Dennis Pfaff of Thelen LLP

Photo: Courtesy of IUCN

Full post as published by Climate Law Update on October 14, 2008 (boomark / email).