California is a great example of how not to adapt to changing climates.
We need new policies to adapt to changing climates. This is evident from the Texas ice storms, Oregon heat waves, and California wildfires. These threats are not going to be solved by international agreements. They will not save American infrastructure and lives. We must stop allowing environmental policy to be delegated to ineffective and vague agreements. Paris, Copenhagen, and Glasgow did not offer a panacea. The Conference of Parties’ future meetings will also fail to produce solutions that are appropriately tailored to American communities.
The best way to protect the environment and prepare for future climate change is to take immediate and concrete actions at the local and state levels.
What we don’t need are politicians looking to score points with their base by announcing meaningless initiatives that look great on Instagram but do little to make our economy, communities, and natural resources more resilient. California is an example of these hollow policies. It is important to identify these paper tigers so that they aren’t emulated elsewhere and so that what precious political capital does exist for climate change related policies is spent on effective interventions.
The paper bag bans were the first paper tiger. California voters banned single-use carryout bags. 2018. Most voters probably didnt know that a disposable plastic bag likely has fewer environmental impacts than that supposedly “green” paper bag meant to replace them. According to the Denmark Ministry of Environment and FoodCalifornians must reuse their paper bags at minimum 43 times in order to have an environmental impact equal or lower than that of a plastic bag.
California’s cap and trade system is the next paper Tiger. California created a cap-and trade program to significantly reduce its dependence on greenhouse gasses under the Global Warming Solutions Act 2006. It has. But there’s a catch. The program covers about 80 percent of the state’s electricity sector emissions, but the bill neglected to adequately consider leakage: the “shift in production and associated emissions from the region where climate regulations apply to surrounding unregulated jurisdictions.” The bottom line, according to researchers from Penn State University, is that California’s scheme may result in out-of-state, dirtier sources emitting even more than they had previously, and all the while California can report reductions in its own emissions.
The California Environmental Quality Act (or CEQA) is the final paper tiger. Californians were optimistic about CEQA. It was created to provide estimates of environmental impacts of proposed projects for the public as well as government decision makers. In reality, it has been a blocker to the kind of development that Californians desperately want, such as the creation additional housing.
Each of these initiatives required substantial, non-renewable financial and political capital. Californians become less willing to take on new initiatives to make their state more resilient, as policy failures continue to mount. Leaders from other states should learn from them. Intention doesn’t equal impact. Impact must be the guiding principle of all environmental policy. Local and state leaders should not attend photo-ops at international climate conferences and should not copy and paste legislation that is grabbing headlines because it is green.
To make a significant impact on climate change adaptation, it is important to have close consultation with residents, small business owners, community leaders, and other local officials. These people should be able to come together with state and local leaders to find concrete measures that will save lives, jobs and homes.
Vermont is a great example of targeted and effective action. Governor Phil Scott (a Republican) gave the power to local water districts to implement projects that would improve water quality. The state allowed municipalities to use funds for projects that had the greatest impact on their communities. From A $138 MillionThe state invested nearly 2,000 acres in conservation and restoration of river corridors.
Other Republican governorsLocal leaders have been given substantial amounts of money for resilience efforts. These leaders may not claim they are addressing climate change, and may even deny it is a thing, but funds to help communities in the face of hurricanes will do more for their constituents than banning plastic bags. While it is not that Democratic leaders have not made similar investments in the past, they seem more willing than others to sign on to any climate legislation that will be popular on Twitter.
Governors of all political persuasions should find ways to cooperate, wherever possible. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is a cap and invest program, is an example of how effective collaboration can be achieved between states. It also shows the value of not doing it all alone. Made up of 11 states, the RGGI has “saved consumers hundreds of millions of dollars on energy” through a “flexible, market-based approach,” per the National Resource Defense Council.
It took elected officials too long for them to realize that grandstanding at a conference is not a sound way to deal with wild weather. Although an international approach to the environment may sound appealing on paper, the U.S. cannot steer China, India and other countries toward American policy preferences. Instead of wasting their resources on useless international lobbying, federal leaders should send them to state leaders and local leaders. This is contingent on the leaders showing that they have done their homework and that they have analyzed the costs and benefits of different policies. They also need to consider the secondary and tertiary consequences of policies and that they have consulted their constituents.
You can score cheap political points by drinking your latte from a straw made from compostable materials. This is a demeaning way to downplay the seriousness of the climate change threat and the dangers it poses to our environment. It is also a way to fuel opposition to other projects that are supposed to protect communities or make our economy more resilient. Local investment is required in concrete projects to ensure environmental protection and adaptation. Not hopes and dreams that foreign leaders will suddenly view environmental issues from a certain point of view.
Kevin FrazierShe is a fellow of the Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law Department at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law.