One interesting perspective I was reading about cap-and-trade and regulations in general is the interplay of regulation at the different sociopolitical levels. Despite the failure of the Copenhagen summit to develop a legally binding global pact for emission reductions, there are many programs that are out there in play at the national, regional & local levels already.

At the national level of course there’s the arguably unsuccessful EU version of the C&T program that has already been going for a few years now but on the US side any kind of near-term national legislation seems far off, especially with the growing skepticism in Washington right now (e.g. the article about the break off of the big 3 from the US CAP & political shifts with the upcoming elections this fall). Beyond the limited prospect for C&T legislation though, there are quite a few mounting pressures to measure & reduce carbon emissions already. At the national level the EPA has been active in forcing the largest carbon emitting facilities (25k+ metric tons) to measure & report their emissions on an annual basis which are then captured in a database that’s publically accessible with the National Climate Reporting Plan. (In searching the EPA’s database, I was able to find the emission stats broken down by emission type for the chemical plant right down the street from where I live behind HBS <iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control.tris_...=02134HSTNC52CAM>).

National Climate Reporting Plan
<www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html>

Where the EPA and regulations at the national level don’t necessarily ‘cap’ the emissions of these companies, it creates transparency which becomes especially important when customers & employees alike are asking tough questions about sustainable business practices. This interplays nicely with agreements taking hold at the regional level where there are already 3 C&T programs in effect in North America:

The Northeastern Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
<www.rggi.org/home>
The Western Climate Initiative (WCI)
<www.westernclimateinitiative.org/>
The Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (GGRA)
<www.midwesternaccord.org/>

Apparently the RGGI which affects Mass was the 1st to go into effect in Jan last year. This is a full-on C&P program amongst member states and trades emission credits on a quarterly basis.

Complementing national regs & caps set at the regional level, municipal governments have taken it one step further signing onto initiatives like the Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement. Through this agreement, local city governments have committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels in line with the Kyoto Protocol (which the US still hasn’t signed and apparently has no intention to…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol).

MCPA Website
<usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm>
The actual MCPA agreement:
<www.coccpac.com/downloads/Resolution_Fin...age_06-13-05.pdf>

The initiatives like the MCPA at the local level are directly driving competition between municipalities and are directly affecting their ability to attract and retain new business and educational institutions which ultimately impacts its revenue generation. It’s all about attracting new jobs and cities are taking the lead on emissions issues to stay competitive on that front. One of the cities I found with the most comprehensive plan for carbon emission reduction is New York City that has embarked on an all-out campaign to reduce its carbon emissions by 30% by 2030 (more than 4x the Kyoto recommendation!!).

NYC Climate Change Website
<www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml>
NYC Annual Climate Change Report
<www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/pd...imate_change.pdf>

So to tie everything together here, what does this all mean? Despite the absence of global emissions reduction legislation (or even national legislation in the case of the US), there are already many local and regional sociopolitical forces mandating reductions in carbon emissions. Local and regional governments have historically driven policy innovation and it’s quite probable that the local & regional programs already in effect will have great influence upwards on national and global legislation. Taken in the context of the many different communities any such legislation will affect, I think this bottom-up approach (as opposed to the top-down EU program) will ultimately be the best & most sustainable as it takes into account the diverse needs of most communities and emulates the most effective characteristics of each program.