Is It Getting Hot in Here?

Friday, Senate Republicans once again demonstrated tremendous foresight by blocking a bill that would have required fairly major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. They did so with a filibuster, the very thing that just a few years ago they called a threat to our Democracy because when they were in the majority it was used so effectively to prevent them from doing whatever they wanted. However, the tables have turned and now the filibuster doesn't seem like such a bad thing, so they pulled it out of retirement to delay our already lagging action on global climate change until next year when the Democrats may have an even larger majority and will certainly have a more receptive Executive.

Why, though, does such a large contingent of the Republican Party, and a few Democrats, drag their feet on such an important issue? A simplistic view would be that these restrictions would raise the cost of business for companies that donate money to the campaigns of many Republicans. As satisfying as that might be to think, it is not accurate or at least not complete. This party which often espouses the superiority of the free market is sadly behind the curve here. Many of the largest corporations in the United States are already investing in so-called "green" technologies and strategies, and benefiting from them.
Toyota, a company that at one time was a joke in America next to the behemoth of General Motors, has seen its market share and reputation shoot to the top thanks in large part to their Prius and other hybrid vehicles, while GM and other American companies are falling behind worldwide because their vehicles can't meet the tighter emissions restrictions of foreign countries. At a time when gas prices are doubling, then doubling again, energy efficiency is not merely trendy, it is financially necessary. This week, Chevy announced its official plans to release the Chevy Volt electric vehicle in 2010, just a little over a decade after GM sabotaged its first electric car.

At the recent Wakefern biennial, the keynote speaker addressed the crowd of executives from ShopRite and Wakefern's other properties about the financial benefits of "going green" to great applause. The often attacked giant WalMart lowered its energy costs in some stores with as little investment as adding doors to their refrigerated displays of milk and dairy. New architecture takes greater advantage of natural light where possible and water reclamation to cut costs to the companies occupying those buildings, sometimes by as much as half.

The economic benefits of using less carbon are clear. If you want to look at the big picture, combating global warming will save us future health care costs and increased food prices as more droughts occur. For once, though, social responsibility and selfishness can come together. Using less energy means less carbon into the atmosphere, but it also means less money spent on energy. Creating eco-friendly products can cost more to produce, but the "green" label can justify a premium price which increasingly eco-conscious consumers will pay for. Multi-billion dollar companies have already discovered that doing right by the environment will also increase their profits and cut their overall costs.

So, again, why do many Republicans fight it? The free market is already rewarding companies that cut their carbon emissions voluntarily, and mandatory regulations could create long-term savings for the companies that are more reluctant to undertake such an effort. The problem is that our stock-ticker corporate culture places a premium on the here-and-now; on what the stock price is today and not what it will be in a year. No matter how much it may save later, many companies don't want to spend money now to change the way they do business, especially when a sudden change in economic fortunes could wipe out their market share. It is not enough for them to remain profitable. They want to maximize profits, which includes not spending money on carbon reclamation efforts. With these maximized profits, they have money and influence to throw around in Washington and elsewhere.

Public perception of this issue has already turned, in large part thanks to the efforts of notable celebrities, responsible companies, and Al Gore whose unlikely documentary became a box-office success. The average person, and especially the well-informed, recognize the danger posed by climate change. More to the point, though, people realize that whether or not this is caused by man or poses an immediate danger, that being environmentally responsible has real benefits not just to polar bears and the rainforest, but to us. The estimated 5-year cost for gasoline for a Hummer or similar vehicle is now equal to or greater than the initial cost of the car itself, and that's based at today's gasoline prices which will surely only go up. Farmers who rent out unused land for to energy companies to build wind turbines can get upwards of $20,000 a year in return. Homeowners who place solar panels on their roof can now sell the excess energy they collect but don't use back to the power company. Carbon-based energy becomes more expensive by the day. Renewable energy is a pay-day to anyone willing to take it.

This bill that was prevented from coming to a vote would have cut greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century. Most international scientists agree that we have to cut our emissions in half by 2050 to prevent irreversible damage to the environment. Had we passed this bill, it would have shown that the United States was a leader on this issue, that we were serious about combating a problem that we are largely responsible for, and it would have made us economically competitive with the rest of the world in new sustainable technologies. Instead, the buck has been passed to another Congress, another term, another election year.

The public wants change. Many companies are already making a change. When legislators block such progress, they cease to be leaders and become mere obstacles. The public is leading, and it's time that the Republican Party catch up.