I think various Grist contributors have linked over there a few times already, but I’ve been remiss in not explicitly noting the debut of environment360, the new online publication from the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. It’s come out of the gate with a bang, with pieces from high-profile writers like Bill McKibben, Elizabeth Kolbert, and Denis Hayes.
In particular, check out “States Take the Lead on Climate,” by Michael Northrop and David Sassoon. It makes the much-overlooked point that states have worked on this stuff for a while, hammered out equitable multi-stakeholder processes, and generated measurable successes. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel:
The fact that so many states are acting with a similar impetus begs an important question: What would happen if you aggregated these policies and applied them on a national scale?
One study conducted by the Center for Climate Strategies — a nonpartisan group that has worked on climate policymaking and analysis with many of these states — indicates that the adoption of a comprehensive, nationwide climate and energy policy would have substantial economic benefits. Using data from 12 states that are leaders in the field of climate change and energy, CSS calculated that were all 50 states to adopt similar rules and legislation, the aggregate economic savings would be $25 billion. The nation could achieve a 33 percent reduction in projected greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 — a common interim target — and save money doing so.
States are the ones exposing the “environment vs. economy” sham. Boxer et al should pay some attention.