George Woodwell, a long-time scientist on NRDC’s board, has battled for action on global warming for years.  Recently, I asked him how he stays so cheerful. Not missing a beat, he said “there is no substitute for optimism. If you can see a way forward, you can be optimistic”.  

I’ve worked in the environmental field for almost thirty years and it is sometimes hard to feel optimistic. Changes to our planet have accelerated rapidly during this short period of time: global warming, fisheries collapse, water scarcity, the list goes on, but I have never failed to see a way forward.  Sometimes it is a state or nation with an innovative policy. Sometimes it is incremental progress at the global level.  Often times, it is inspired by the campaign of one or two intrepid souls.  But now we are running out of time and we urgently need to see action at all levels, simultaneously working to better protect the planet.

This imperative doesn’t seem to be lost on our new president. In his acceptance speech and inaugural address, the President referred to our “planet in peril” as one of his top concerns and has consistently listed addressing global warming and energy reform at the top of his policy objectives.  But he also clearly believes that doing right by the planet and generations to come will reap immediate benefits as well.  The stimulus bill and his budget invest in a nascent energy “revolution” to get us out of the economic – as well as planetary - mess we are in.  No longer are environmental and energy policies sidebar issues, but have moved into a center role where initiatives on clean energy, technological innovation, and job creation are meshed into one to meet multiple policy goals. 

A good example is the stimulus bill, passed in mid-February.   The bill has nearly $80 billion in renewable energy and efficiency spending, a full 10th of the overall package, which represents the biggest injection of federal support for transforming the production and use of energy in our history.  It will help grow this sector, cut our reliance on foreign oil (which, by the way, costs us $700 billion in borrowed money every year) and cut the pollution that causes global warming.  A huge chunk of this funding will go to weatherize millions of American homes and green Federal buildings, employing people in “green collar” jobs who have lost their job in the traditional construction industry. Another example is the President’s federal budget which contains, for the first time, estimates for proceeds from a “carbon cap” – a cap on absolute levels of pollution that puts a price on the remaining carbon dioxide emissions. The proceeds will fund renewable energy, health care, tax breaks, and other items (which we want more of) and help discourage pollution (which we want less of). 

Next, the President and Congress will focus on legislation that will set up this “cap and invest” system. The U.S. faces twin imperatives – getting domestic legislation passed and moving a global agreement forward that bring about steep reductions. The good news is that already 1,000 U.S. mayors and half the states have put in place their own global warming plans.  It will still be a huge fight but it feels like the ground is shifting in our favor – even in these difficult economic times.  Globally it will also take unprecedented leadership. Over 15 years ago, the U.S. ratified the world’s first treaty on climate change after the Rio Earth Summit.  Over ten years ago, a “protocol” was added to this treaty calling on developed countries to take the first steps in reducing greenhouse gas pollution.  Sadly, there has been little real progress towards reducing pollution to below 1990 levels – the stated goal of the protocol – partly because the U.S., the emitter of 25% of the world’s global warming pollution, refused to act.  Now the U.S. must show that we are prepared to do our part (and that we believe it is an economic plus to act) and bring along critical countries such as China and India. 

What’s required is nothing short of changing the very way we have powered our society over the last couple of centuries.  We don’t have much time to mull it all over either. Scientists are warning that we have less than a decade to start reducing the pollution that causes global warming if we are to stave off the worst impacts.  Certainly a world perched on the edge of catastrophic melting of our poles makes the bank bailout look like small potatoes.

But then I think of George’s comment and reflect a little on where we have come from and what I have seen work.  I started my career advocating for acid rain legislation. Acid rain is mainly a side effect of burning coal and it was poisoning the lakes and streams as well as causing other damage to huge portions of the eastern United States and Canada.  In 1990, the U.S. adopted legislation that cut acid rain pollution in half by requiring that “scrubbers” be installed on coal burning furnaces and put in place the first “trading system” for pollution reductions. 

On the global scale, chemicals used mainly in refrigeration were literally eating away at the world’s protective ozone layer, critical for shielding the planet from cancer causing UV radiation. In the late 1980s, the United Nations shepherded through a global agreement known as “The Montreal Protocol” that phased out the use of chemicals responsible for the damage.  Less harmful chemicals were developed and the hole has been gradually closing ever since.

The backdrop to these two success stories was a period of intense national and global law making in the 1970s.  After the first Earth Day, our major environmental statutes were passed in rapid succession – the Clean Air Act in 1970, the Clean Water Act in 1972, the Endangered Species Act in 1973, the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976, and the Superfund in 1980.  In 1972, the first Earth Summit was held in Stockholm, Sweden. Many of our environmental treaties were adopted shortly thereafter.  NRDC and other national groups were formed during this period – NRDC in the dining hall of Yale Law School – and now employ thousands of advocates working on behalf of people and the environment.  Thousands more form a vibrant “grassroots” movement that continually challenges the status quo.

It is hard to imagine what our country would be like if we had not passed these statutes or invested in building this cadre of environmental activists in their support. I’ve travelled to many developing countries where the air is unbreathable and the water undrinkable.  I’ve ridden in “tuk tuks” - taxis in Bangkok – whose gas tanks could explode at any moment.  And, tragically, many environmental activists have lost their lives for lack of the civil liberties and democratic protections.  We can’t protect ourselves against these harms without the power of the law and rules. 

That system of laws and rules, and fundamentally behavior at all levels, is broadening out dramatically and will be tested like never before.  The statutes of the 1970s seem almost quaint in their focus on solving problems by using technology to reduce pollution at the end of a pipe. As Tom Friedman said in his New York Times column on March 7, we are facing the point of inflection where both the Wall Street economy and the earth's natural systems are hitting the wall at the same time.  Given that stark reality, the spotlight must now be on changing the very way we produce energy and food, and how much we consume. 

Instead of making a better Cadillac, we have to throw it out for the Prius – or better yet, for high-speed rail and walkable communities.  We need to have more “smart growth” and greener buildings.  Companies should add photovoltaic panels and earthen roofs to reduce stormwater runoff and better insulate their miles of flat roofs.  We’ll need to enact new treaties to control mercury and to protect the arctic as the melting ice opens it up for shipping and resource extraction.  There is much to be done but there is already a beehive of activity that the President,  Congress, and other nations can magnify with leadership and the right policies.

And while there is a dire imperative to these issues, there is also a huge opportunity to do things better and more fairly. Perhaps we’ll even be inspired to think more deeply about what matters most to us and what we plan to leave for the next generation and for other co-inhabitants on this miraculous planet. As George said, there is no alternative to optimism.  That is a refreshing idea here in Washington, D.C. at the start of 2009.