Recently our President made a major announcement. He announced his plan to address global warming and claimed that, “[o]ver the past seven years, my administration has taken a rational, balanced approach to these serious challenges.” What approach? Until recently, the Administration had denied that global warming was even occurring or that humans had any impact on it. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court told the EPA that it could not ignore global warming. The Supreme Court further found that greenhouse gas emissions were an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA had authority to regulate the emission. In the year since that ruling has the EPA, controlled by the Bush administration, issued regulations to begin controlling the emission of carbon dioxide? No.
The Plan that has been announced is so visionary that we can probably excuse his almost eight year silence on the subject. The Plan calls for us to stop the growth in emissions by 2025. Our president is not asking for a reduction in overall emissions – he is just asking that, by 2025, we not increase them. Bush is calling for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants to peak within the next 10 to 15 years. He not asking that they begin to reduce their emissions. While the New Jersey and other states are calling for a reduction of overall greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, the Federal government is saying that increasing emission between now and 2025 is OK. Bush has touted the billions of dollars the Federal government is spending for next generation nuclear energy, but he has made no mention of any money for renewable energy. He does, however, talk about the investment in developing clean coal technologies.
In his pronouncement Bush went so far as to chide the U.S. Supreme Court for doing its job – reading the clear language of the laws enacted and applying those laws to the facts before it. According to the President, laws enacted thirty years ago, including the Clean Air Act, should not be used to combat air pollution. Bush told us that such decisions were not for the Courts to make but for the legislators. Well, if that is the case, the U.S. Congress and his administration have failed to do their jobs for many many years.
Bush told us that any solution to global warming must take into consideration “an honest assessment of the costs, benefits and feasibility of any proposed solution.” Well, what are the costs of global warming? As it pertains to New Jersey those costs can be great. Several insurers have decided not to renew or write new homeowner policies along the coast of New Jersey. According to the insurers, we are due to a big storm to hit and they do not want to foot the bill for rebuilding.
Our weather is going to change drastically over the next several decades. Depending on whether we actually do something about climate change or continue to have an overdue “honest assessment” that weighs costs and benefits , our climate here in New Jersey could resemble Virginia/North Carolina or Savannah, Georgia. Although winter precipitation could increase by 20 to 30 percent, most of that would be rain – we would lose any chance of actually having a white Christmas. Furthermore, we could lose somewhere between 1 to 3% of the total land area of the State due to sea level rise attributable to global warming. That could have a devastating affect not only on the lives of people living along the coast but on the NJ tourism industry (New Jersey’s number 2 industry). Atlantic City could be subject to complete flooding because of storms once every year to two. Flooding along all of our water ways could become more frequent and more severe.
Global warming will not only reshape the coast of New Jersey, but it will impact our economy as well. As noted above, tourism is the second largest industry in New Jersey but that could very well change what with Atlantic City perpetually under water and our beautiful shore gone. Our agriculture industry could also change from what we know. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, cows will become less productive in producing milk as a result of the heat. Blueberries and cranberries may not be able to grow in the State. Apples also may no longer be able to grow in New Jersey because, like blueberries and cranberries, apple trees need a period of winter weather for optimum growth. The Garden State that we know may not be the one that exists in a few decades.
So while I am glad the President of the United States finally sees that we should be doing something, his plan is a step back from what New Jersey, California and others are already doing to address global warming. The economic, environmental and human costs of not seriously addressing global warming is too great for New Jersey. The Federal Government should follow the lead of these States and not try to drag down the progress that has been made.
