Yes, I know–most people think public policy is about as exciting as watching old paint peel. I respectfully differ, simply because it’s a critical link between what citizens need and want from their government and what they actually get, once you go through all the pork barrel politics, paid influence, cronyism, etc.
A few public policy-related stories in today’s feed really caught my attention. Whether you love or hate or are indifferent to the details below (and I make little or no judgment on them at this point, having just found them), the bottom line is the same: What we collectively choose to do or not do is, by definition, our public policy.
The thorny road to Copenhagen:
Asked what the most pressing issues to be dealt with ahead of December’s UN climate conference in Copenhagen are, Sweden’s Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren said:
“To close the gap between, on one hand science, and what science has told we need to do, and on the other hand the bids on the table.”
Denmark’s Minister for Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard said that “climate change is about much more than just climate change”.
“To tackle climate change is also to try to position oneself strategically in the 21st century. Those who first do what is necessary – develop the new technologies, develop the policies – they will also be suited the best economically, politically, strategically,” she said.
In other words, if all you care about is money, go green. If all you care about is saving ourselves and our kids from climate chaos, go green. And public policy will play a huge role in this transition for decades to come as we deal with the increasingly urgent situation we’ve created.
McKinsey Report Cites $1.2 Trillion in Potential Savings from Energy Efficiency:
A new report on energy efficiency from the consulting firm McKinsey found that the United States could save $1.2 trillion through 2020, by investing $520 billion in improvements such as sealing leaky building ducts and replacing inefficient household appliances with new, energy-saving models.
That investment would cut the country’s projected energy usage in 2020 by about 23 percent — a savings that would be “greater than the total of energy consumption of Canada,” said Ken Ostrowski, a senior partner in McKinsey’s Atlanta office, at a press event in Washington this morning. It would also more than offset the expected growth in energy usage that would be expected otherwise in the United States.
“The scale is vast if we can put together the means to pursue it,” Mr. Ostrowski said.
Homes account for about 35 percent of the possible gains in end-use efficiency, according to McKinsey. The industrial sector accounts for 40 percent and the commercial sector for 25 percent.
The report looked only at cases in which the economic benefits of efficiency improvements would ultimately outweigh the cost of the upfront investment. It did not look at the transportation sector; nor did its $1.2 trillion figure factor in a price on greenhouse gas emissions, which could increase the savings. (If carbon dioxide emissions are priced at $30 per ton, the United States could save about an additional 8 percent, the report found.)
The report is here [165 page, 6.5 MB PDF].
France considers launching carbon tax:
France’s government was set to consider taxing carbon emissions as part of a drive to fight global warming, after experts handed in a report on the issue on Tuesday.
The government-named panel headed by former Socialist prime minister Michel Rocard recommended that the tax be paid “by everybody without exception and exemption.”
Trade unions and consumers’ associations have already said they oppose any new taxes for French households.
“The government will raise several billion euros from consumers, give them back a part and keep a substantial part for its general budget, or to lower the business tax,” the UFC-Que Choisir consumers’ lobby group warned.
The new tax “must not increase inequalities,” said the CGT union.
Are we about to see a convergence of the “France does nuclear real good, so can we” camp and a new, “France doesn’t need no steenkin’ cap and trade–they just tax” group?
U.S. Can Cut Half Its Carbon Emissions From Transportation by 2050, Report Says:
The United States can cut greenhouse gas emissions from transportation in half by 2050 with strategies ranging from cutting speed limits to imposing road pricing, according to a report released today by federal agencies and environmental and industry groups.
Examining about 50 transportation strategies, the report found transportation emissions could be reduced 24 percent by 2050 by acting to change travel behavior and land-use patterns. The emissions reduction hit 47 percent by adding road pricing techniques, ranging from pay-as-you-go insurance to charging Americans for every mile driven.
The report found environmental gains from advances in fuel efficiency would be mostly undermined by increased travel and population, making it important to address the efficiency of the transportation sector by investing in public transit, land-use planning and other low-carbon alternatives.
John Porcari, deputy secretary at the Department of Transportation, said the report shows that lawmakers looking to recast the nation’s transportation system to curb emissions and fuel consumption will need to look for combinations of policy changes. “There is no magic bullet,” he said. “There is no single strategy that can be pursued to help us turn our corner. We need to look at a number of options.”
Sadly, it seems the report is not freely available.
You can get the executive summary here [17 page, 5.8 MB PDF], but the full version is only available for a fee.
A presentation is also available [10 page, 2.8 MB PDF].
See also the NRDC press release about the study.
