The Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Accord (MGGRA) was a commitment by governors of six Midwestern
states, including Wisconsin, and the premier of one Canadian
province. The objective of the Accord was to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions through a regional cap-and-trade program and other
complementary policy measures. The accord aimed to reduce emissions
by up to 20 percent by stripping carbon from industries. Signed in
November 2007, participating states are no longer pursuing MGGRA.
One of the goals of the MGGRA was to
develop a market-based and multi-sector cap-and-trade mechanism to
reach targeted greenhouse gas emissions. This mechanism sets limits
on the total amount of GHGs that can be emitted by certain sources
and permits those entities under the cap to trade pollution credits
with each other. The capped sectors included electricity generation
and imports, industrial combustion and process sources,
transportation fuels, and residential, commercial, and industrial
fuels not otherwise covered. Only sources producing more than 25,000
metric tons of carbon dioxide are covered under the accord. Under
the MGGRA, the credits were to be compatible with other regional,
and possibly federal, programs so that greenhouse gas sources can
trade allowances outside the Midwest. Trading creates incentives for
producers to develop low cost solutions to reduce emissions.
Creating market incentives is an
excellent way to get into action. These incentives encourage
industries to decrease their greenhouse gas emissions, helping to
fight climate change.
In the form
of governance, I think that the actors, initiatives, and regulations all play a
role and are interconnected in dealing with environmental issues. In my groups’
case, our environmental problem is regarding the adaptation and mitigation of
climate change. In the blog posts posted by my blog teammates there is a
diverse collection of actors, governance initiatives, and regulations that
minimally overlap when addressing adaptation and mitigation of climate
change.I think with our strategy to do
this has provided a good framework of climate change and the key components
that reveal the strengths and limitations when dealing with such a monumental
issue.Not every actor, initiative, or
regulation is unflawed and powerful in harnessing change, but as a collaborative
network of different approaches in dealing with climate change, I think that we
as a society have a better chance at solving this problem.
As far
as the most promising ways forward in addressing climate change, I think that a
network form of governance is key. When talking about trying to achieve the
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions I think that the Clean Air Act and all of
its amendments really stand a fighting chance in combating climate change in
the United States by reducing billions of metric tons of GHG’s.Through regulations that the EPA passes
through the help of the CAA, it will hold the big actors and policy makers more
accountable for their actions, which contribute to climate change.Ideally, I would like to see other countries
influenced by our laws and policies regarding the reduction in GHG’s and hold
these entities with the most contribution in polluting to be held
accountable.My classmate Andy Boinski
collected this information regarding the CAA.Another promising way in addressing climate change is through giving
businesses’ and the general public (residential entities) incentives to reduce
their carbon footprint. The multifaceted organization that works on mitigating
this is Focus on Energy (FOE).As
explained in detail in my past blogs, they do this by offering tax incentives
to entities willing to use environmentally conscious technologies such as wind
turbines and solar panels, just to name a few.I think this has great potential because our whole way of life is dictated
by economics and money. By having a program that is focused on the environment
and climate change, while using an incentive approach, results in a cohesive
relationship with a network and market form of governance.
J.P.
Evans “eight hypotheses”, hold some water to our group’s topic, mitigation and
adaptation to climate change.The first
one that caught my eye was“Governments
matter”.Governments obviously give a
state structure by shaping markets, creating political views, and creating a
sense of accountability to policy makers and the laws that they pass.The book says, “Given the scale and speed of
change required to address climate change, commentators are increasingly
advocating direct government action, for example to pump money directly into
research rather than incentivizing the market to deliver the right innovations
through taxes and subsidies (Lomborg 2007)”. This is a direct parallel with the
program, FOE, which I have been writing about in my previous blogs.I think that having a mixture of the right
approaches is critical as well.Due to
the fact that climate change is a global problem there are many institutions,
initiatives, and regulations that have emerged to deal with this monumental
environmental issue.Sure it has its
upsides and downsides but usually everything does. I also agree with the fact
that we are all living in a world in which we don’t live habitually but rather
in a way that is reflective upon our actions.
The actors, regulations, and
initiatives we have addressed in previous blog posts all play
important roles in mitigating and adapting to climate change in
Wisconsin. While they have different levels of strength, they each
contribute to solving this problem.
I believe that the Clean Air Act (CAA)
has the most potential for mitigating climate change. Under rules
imposed by the CAA, greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to decline
by billions of metric tons. Under the CAA, the EPA is able to
enforce rules that will actively fight emissions that cause climate
change. If the EPA can keep these regulations enforced and
potentially introduce more regulations, I think it will be the
driving force behind the fighting of climate change in the United
States. While not as powerful as the CAA, the Wisconsin Initiative
on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI) is one of the most important
organizations in Wisconsin focusing on climate change. With a
network of scientists, decision makers, and citizens, WICCI works to
assess and anticipate climate change impacts on Wisconsin and then
recommend adaptation strategies for these impacts. While the
organization is limited by the fact that it does not have any
official governmental power, it does have the power to inform
citizens and policy makers about climate change, which could lead to
government action. Even though WICCI doesn't make rules, it is
socially important as it gets communities to act on climate change.
Action must be taken to avoid potential problems listed in this short video on climate change in Wisconsin
In our textbook, Evans gives the
hypothesis that 'networks and markets are the best thing that we
have.' In the situation of climate change, I disagree. If not for
laws and regulations, I think a large amount of greenhouse gas
emissions would largely go unchecked. While citizens may have wanted
cleaner air, industries might not have wanted to adapt to this.
Regulations force these industries into action, which is a big help
for this problem. Evans also states that 'Duality of structure is
critical' and that to achieve widespread change, networks need to be
empowered to act in order to address common goals. I believe this is
true, if many networks on the smaller scale act together in achieving
a common goal, they will create a larger effect. As seen throughout
our posts, there are many actors and networks in Wisconsin trying to
mitigate or adapt to climate change, each in their own way.
Individually, they make relatively little impact on the situation,
but as an entire network of fighting climate change they are a huge
force. This can be scaled up even further with the CAA. Other
nations may see how effective the CAA can be and may possibly adopt
similar strategies in the fight against climate change. I agree with Evans saying 'Governance
is about learning.' whether it be initiatives and regulations that
work, or markets that fail, we should always be learning on what has
or has not worked for us. With this knowledge, future action can be
better tailored to the problem at hand and with less and less failures
over time, the world will gain a
stronger understanding of how to deal with climate change.
Over the course of this blog, we have looked at many different actors, regulations, and initiatives in Wisconsin that deal with climate change. Each has done something to help improve our current climate change situation. Whether it be government regulations like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Power Plan, a network of actors like 350.org and the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, a market governance like Focus on Energy, or new initiatives like the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts, we have witnessed many attempts to combat climate change. Climate change can not be improved without a combination of modes of governance, all working separately but towards a common goal. The government is good for enacting policies that people must follow. Networks are a good way to bring people with a common interest together to fight for their cause. Markets are important because money incentives make people more likely to move towards environmentally cleaner products and services. So while some actors may be doing a better job of accomplishing their goal, it's important to have all modes of governance on board for combating climate change. Based on what we have looked at in this blog, I think the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, 350.org, Clean Air Act, WICC, and Clean Power Plan have the most potential to address climate change.
It's going to take a host of actors to combat climate change.
Our course textbook has discussed environmental governance, and Evans concludes by posing some hypotheses about what makes environmental governance work. I address three of the eight that I think apply well to climate change governance.
Getting the right mix of approaches is critical. Evans states that there "is no magic bullet for solving environmental issues because the problems and potential solutions vary greatly" (Evans, 214). It takes many different modes of governance to combat the problem of climate change. We need actors on all levels using different techniques because climate change is a complex problem and doesn't have a simple fix. We have seen throughout this blog that actors are combating different problems to try to mitigate climate change. For example, Obama's Clean Power Plan is a government regulation that is working to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. While this is an important step in the right direction, climate change is due to more than just carbon emissions. Networks like 350.org and the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters work to influence policy makers. 350.org calls important issues to attention through protests and petitions. They are also working to educate society on our climate change issues. The League works to bring politicians and policies into the government that will improve our climate crisis. They also work to keep those that will make climate change worse out of our government. We can see that our work towards mitigating climate change wouldn't be possible with only one of these actors. Governments matter. Governments are an important aspect of environmental governance. They have the ability to shape markets, innovations, and policies. Having the government help work towards a solution is a very important aspect. For climate change, we see that the government has put regulations in place to help mitigate climate change. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Power Plan have been important tools to regulate emissions as well as bring problems to public eye. When the Clean Air Act was enacted, many people were unaware of what was causing the air pollution. Furthermore, I think today many people are ignorant or turn a blind eye to how much pollution our power plants release. Government policies can be used to kick-start a new movement of innovations. Obama commented about how he hopes his Clean Power Plan will help lead the world to create other policies and initiatives to reduce emissions, and just in time for the Paris Climate Talks.
Obama at the Paris Climate Talks, 2015. A meeting of world leaders to address climate change.
Networks and markets are the best things we have. It is unlikely that all the governments of the world will come together and agree on things. While networks and markets aren't perfect, Evans argues that they are the best tool we have for environmental governance. I would have to say, based on the networks I've researched, I would have to agree with Evans. The U.S. government has done some really great things to help with climate change, but it has take years to do so. With climate change being an ever pressing issue, we need to see changes occur faster. Networks like the Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters are working to make policy changes at a quicker rate simply by voting. When a group of people come together for a common cause, they can achieve more. We've also looked at 350.org, which networks around the world to demand changes from the norm to combat climate change. Markets are also important to incentivize cleaner technologies. FOE encourages customers to purchase cleaner energy products and services. Sources; https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/03/fact-sheet-president-obama-announce-historic-carbon-pollution-standards http://350.org/ http://conservationvoters.org/about/nonpartisan/ https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQTwMYdEkIYJ-SZBnvoCYasJIGnZ09sWANY8H41QfzJ5D7HFI7fEw http://www.unep.org/NewsCentre/InsertImage.asp?ImageSizeID=3&DocumentID=629&ArticleID=6641
