As if preventing catastrophic global warming isn't incentive enough for states like Virginia to take measures to slash their greenhouse gas emissions, a study released yesterday ("No Reason to Wait") by Stanford University finds that such measures also can save a great deal of money. We're not talking small change here, either. According to the study:
California's strict environmental laws, often derided as a drag on growth, actually saved consumers and businesses $56 billion through gains in efficiency since the first major oil price spike in the 1970s...
That's right, according to the new report - billed as "the first large-scale case study on the economic impact of reducing greenhouse was pollution," Californians have saved $56 BILLION since the 1970s by enacting stringent environmental laws. This is huge. In short, saving the environment also means saving money - a great deal of money. According to the study's author, Stanford Professor Walter Reid:
There is a lot of low-hanging fruit for companies and states that invest in steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So why do some people -- first among whom is our philospher/king/president, George W. Bush -- continue to believe the exact opposite, that cutting greenhouse gas emissions actually HURTS the economy? Have they conducted their own studies, or had some political hack in the White House go through government studies and black out any parts that didn't tow the party line (actually, they have? Do they believe they have access to facts that the rest of us aren't, just like on the (nonexistent) Saddam-9/11 connection perhaps? Are they rigid, anti-environmental and "pro-business" ideologues? Is the Pope Catholic? Or, are they simply in the pocket of a few big companies - the big automakers like Ford and GM, for instance - that have opposed taking any action on this issue? How about "all of the above?" (that's right, "all of the above" is the correct answer!)
By the way, I would point out that Ford and GM haven't exactly done too well for themselves in the long run by constantly fighting against - instead of wholeheartedly embracing - fuel efficient vehicles. In fact, it turns out that failure to adapt to a world of $60 per barrel oil and controls on carbon dioxide emissions may, among other things, be the death of those two companies in the end. Now imagine if, instead of churning out Hummers and Suburbans all these years, those two companies instead had invested in hybrid and other fuel efficiency technologies back in the 1980s and 1990s? Perhaps now, they'd be as profitable as Toyota, busy making money hand over fist?
So why do companies, countries, and states resist rapid enactment of greenhouse gas reduction programs? According to the study:
...[anti-greenhouse gas reduction] positions are based in part on misperceptions of the true costs and benefits of emission reduction. The price tag in industrialized countries would indeed be staggering if abatement costs were as high as those used in some models (e.g., $100? per ton of carbon dioxide), but real-world costs are turning out to be far lower ? in fact, net economic savings often result from energy efficiency investments and demand-side management.
In other words, people like George W. Bush, and companies like GM and Ford, have had things almost 180 degrees, totally, absolutely ass backwards. Not only does reducing pollution and increasing energy efficiency not "wreck" the economy, but such measures actually HELP the economy. Tremendously. But good luck getting any leadership out of the George Bushes, Fords, GMs, and ExxonMobils of the world. They may simply be lost causes. But states like Virginia certainly are NOT lost causes, not at all. In fact, as we pointed out recently, states across the Northeast and West Coast are right now busy adopting tough "California standards"on greenhouse gas emissions. Those states are bound to be big winners, as the Stanford study ponts out, while those states that lag behind or fail to get on board the bandwagon, will fall behind.
Which side do we want to be on, right here in Virginia? Do we want to be leaders in saving the planet, while helping our own bottom line to the tune of billions of dollars? Or, do we want to align ourselves with the forces of ignorance and (short-sighted) greed, fighting the inevitable while others race ahead of us?
The time for procrastination is over. The time for action is here. Now, there's not even the (lame) excuse that saving our planet might cost us a bit of money. In fact, we can do good while doing well - VERY well -- for ourselves. That's why I hereby call on Governor-elect Kaine, (God, I love saying that!) as one of his first official acts, to announce that Virginia will be joining with Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, California, etc. in taking measures to slash greenhouse gas emissions. As it has so many times in its great history, Virginia needs to be a leader once again, not a laggard. With our high-tech economy, we are ideally placed to benefitfrom new energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction technologies. So what on earth are we waiting for?