By Mark P. Chatelain, Ph.D.

In December, 2007, McKinsey & Company and The Conference Board jointly published an Executive Report titled “Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?”

The report is a must-read for anyone following this topic. 

Most noteworthy is the statement, “The U.S. will need to develop and implement a strong, coordinated program of economy-wide abatement actions in the near future, if it is to achieve emissions reductions (in bills currently before Congress) for 2030 at the lowest cost to the economy.”  The report suggests the abatement program be built on three principal actions:

1. Stimulate action through a portfolio of strong, coordinated policies to capture GHG reductions efficiently across industry sectors and geographies.
2. Pursue energy efficiency and negative-cost options quickly.
3. Accelerate development of a low-carbon energy infrastructure.

In my opinion, these actions make great sense and are worthy of implementation.  Yet the stalling by many companies and politicos likely will complicate effective implementation of these rather simple actions.  For example, the grass-roots efforts to implement strong GHG reduction legislation are prompting many states and municipalities to enact their own programs for reducing GHGs in the absence of federal legislation or guidance.  Many of these emerging programs have numerous similarities.  However, each has distinct nuances that are creating inconsistencies between regions, states and even between municipalities within some states – a real nightmare for any multinational company interested in compliance leadership.

To make matters worse, these differences are spreading globally, along with frustration at the lack of a strong coordinated policy.  The bickering and appeasement of special interests groups most likely will continue for several years before any basic guidance at the U.S. federal or at an international level ever is achieved.

Although many might see the foot-dragging as positive for developing effective and reasonable GHG regulations, the flip side is that each state and municipality is creating bureaucratic infrastructures that likely will grow with every day that an overarching federal requirement is not implemented. 

As these state and municipal bureaucracies expand, it undoubtedly will become increasingly more difficult to undo them and their unique requirements for reducing GHGs.  States and municipalities should not be faulted for being proactive.  However, those special interest groups and corporations resisting “strong, coordinated policies to capture GHG reductions efficiently across industry sectors and geographies” should wake up to the cold reality of the problems they are incubating.  It is time to fish – not cut bait.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Name:
Email Address:
URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)