Although the United States signed the original Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Congress never ratified the agreement so the protocol has never been legally binding on the United States. The administration of President George W. Bush argued that there was no scientific consensus on global warming and that the costs of reducing greenhouse gases were simply too high. However, many state and local governments felt they had waited long enough for change at the federal level. In 2005, mayors from 141 cities and both major political parties gathered in San Francisco to organize their own efforts to reduce the causes and consequences of global warming. Their goal was to reduce greenhouse emissions in their own cities by the same 7 percent that the United States had agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol.

As of 2014, a total of 1,060 out of 1,139 mayors of U.S. cities had signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Among the reasons the mayors cited for supporting this agreement were concerns in their communities over increasing droughts, reduced supplies of fresh water due to melting glaciers, and rising sea levels in coastal cities. “The United States inevitably will have to join this effort,” Seattle mayor Greg Nickels said. “Ultimately we will make it impossible for the federal government to say no. They will see that it can be done without huge economic disruption and that there’s support throughout the country to do this.”

Similar actions are being taken at the state level. In 2005, then-governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger stated at a press conference, “The debate is over . . . and we know the time for action is now.” In 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act. The goal of the act was to bring California into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol by 2020, an effort that would require a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gases for a state that, if a country, would be the tenth largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world. At the signing ceremony, the governor stated, “I say unquestionably it is good for businesses.” Indeed, a cost analysis by the California Air Resources Board in 2008 indicated that the law would add $27 billion to the economy of the state and add 100,000 jobs.

The California effort is gaining popularity around the country. In the northeastern United States, for example, nine states have joined together collectively to form the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to control regional production of greenhouse gases. A similar group emerged in western North America when seven western states and four Canadian provinces joined together in 2007 to form the Western Climate Initiative. For both groups, the goal was to to regulate greenhouse emissions. By 2014, northeastern group continued to work together while the western group had a reduced membership that included only California and the four Canadian provinces.

A number of large businesses are also joining in efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. General Electric, for example, announced in 2014 that it had reduced its greenhouse emissions by 34 percent since 2004. In addition, the company has invested $12 billion for research and development of technologies that can reduce greenhouse gases and is planning to invest a total of $25 billion by 2020. In 2011, General Electric announced that its technology generated more than $100 billion in revenues, which confirmed that creating technology that would reduce greenhouse emissions was a profitable thing to do.

In 2013, the New York Times reported that a growing number of companies including Microsoft, ExxonMobil, and Google have developed long-term financial plans that include the cost of producing greenhouse gases. These companies recognize that the scientific evidence of human-caused global climate change continues to grow and that they will increasingly need to factor the costs of emissions into their budgets. Those companies that include plans to accommodate and reduce these costs are likely to profit from such planning.

696

From these stories, it is clear that progress on reducing greenhouse gases that cause global warming does not have to wait for national and international agreements to take effect. The public overwhelmingly understands that Earth is warming, states and cities are pushing forward with solutions that save money, and large corporations understand that reducing emissions can reduce costs and improve profits over the long term. In short, curbing greenhouse gases and global warming is not only good for humans and the environment, it can be good for business as well.

Critical Thinking Questions

References

Barringer, F. 2013. States group calls for 45% cut in amount of carbon emissions allowed. New York Times, February 7. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/business/energy-environment/states-group-calls-for-45-cut-in-amount-of-carbon-emissions-allowed.html.

Davenport, C. 2013. Large companies prepared to pay price on carbon. New York Times, December 5, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/business/energy-environment/large-companies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html.

Peer, M. 2009. GE’s green goals. Forbes, June 11. http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/11/general-electric-energy-markets-equities-alternative.html.