NYT Carbon Cap Editorial, 11.11.07 Press

November 11, 2007

Connecticut

Squaring Off on Global Warming

Five Connecticut environmental groups recently called on the state to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050. They promise a proposal in time for the next legislative session that would, if passed, impose mandatory caps on fossil fuel emissions to combat global warming.

This would be a good move, one more example of states’ taking on this important issue in the absence of aggressive federal policies.

The move is separate from Connecticut’s involvement in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an agreement among a group of Northeastern states to cap and then reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, using a market-based trading system. Power plants account for 25 percent of Connecticut’s greenhouse gas emissions.

But that leaves plenty of pollution to worry about — most notably from cars and trucks, which account for 35 percent of carbon emissions in the state, according to a report by the environmental groups, roughly their contribution to carbon emissions nationally.

Connecticut could do better if it tried. The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey paints a bleak picture of how little Connecticut commuters use mass transit, which is spotty or unavailable in large areas of the state. Of the state’s more than 1.3 million commuters, just under 70,000, or around 5 percent, take mass transit.

That’s a poor showing, considering that as many as 52,000 residents actually walk to work. More mass transit — a lot more — must be introduced into Connecticut if pollution is ever to be reduced substantially.

The environmental groups’ proposal is not yet written, but business interests are already concerned. The Connecticut Business and Industry Association said it would oppose any mandated reductions.

The business association has its own set of bleak statistics, among them the fact that Connecticut has the highest energy prices in the country. The group fears that such mandates could put businesses at a disadvantage with out-of-state competitors that do not have the same constraints.

What both sides believe is that climate change needs action sooner rather than later. As heretical as it sounds, they should talk to each other before the proposal is complete. Both sides make good points. They share at least a patch of common ground. And neither can afford to ignore the other.