|February 23, 2007/NY TIMES.
Colorless Green Ideas
By PAUL KRUGMAN
THE FACTUAL DEBATE ABOUT whether global warming is real is, or at
least should be, over. The question now is what to do about it.
Aside from a few dead-enders on the political right, climate change
skeptics seem to be making a seamless transition from denial to
fatalism. In the past, they rejected the science. Now, with the
scientific evidence pretty much irrefutable, they insist that it
doesn't matter because any serious attempt to curb greenhouse gas
emissions is politically and economically impossible.
Behind this claim lies the assumption, explicit or implicit, that any
substantial cut in energy use would require a drastic change in the
way we live. To be fair, some people in the conservation movement seem
to share that assumption.
But the assumption is false. Let me tell you about a real-world
counterexample: an advanced economy that has managed to combine rising
living standards with a substantial decline in per capita energy
consumption, and managed to keep total carbon dioxide emissions more
or less flat for two decades, even as both its economy and its
population grew rapidly. And it achieved all this without
fundamentally changing a lifestyle centered on automobiles and
The name of the economy? California.
There's nothing heroic about California's energy policy — but that's
precisely the point. Over the years the state has adopted a series of
conservation measures that are anything but splashy. They're the kind
of drab, colorless stuff that excites only real policy wonks. Yet the
cumulative effect has been impressive, if still well short of what we
really need to do.
The energy divergence between California and the rest of the United
States dates from the 1970s. Both the nation and the state initially
engaged in significant energy conservation after that decade's energy
crisis. But conservation in most of America soon stalled: after a
decade of rapid progress, improvements in auto mileage came to an end,
while electricity consumption continued to rise rapidly, driven by the
growing size of houses, the increasing use of air-conditioning and the
proliferation of appliances.
In California, by contrast, the state continued to push policies
designed to encourage conservation, especially of electricity. And
these policies worked.
People in California have always used a bit less energy than other
Americans because of the mild climate. But the difference has grown
much larger since the 1970s. Today, the average Californian uses about
a third less total energy than the average American, uses less than 60
percent as much electricity, and is responsible for emitting only
about 55 percent as much carbon dioxide.
How did the state do it? In some cases conservation was mandated
directly, through energy efficiency standards for appliances and rules
governing new construction. Also, regulated power companies were given
new incentives to promote conservation, via rule changes that
"decoupled" their profits from the amount of electricity they sold.
And yes, a variety of state actions had the effect of raising energy
prices. In the early 1970s, the price of electricity in California was
close to the national average. Today, it's about 50 percent higher.
Incidentally, since someone is bound to mention it: the California
energy crisis of 2000-2001 has nothing to do with this story. That
crisis was caused by market manipulation — we've got it on tape — made
possible by ill-conceived deregulation, not conservation.
Back to California's success. As the higher price of power indicates,
conservation didn't come free. Still, it's striking how invisible
California's energy policy remains. It's easy to see why New York has
much lower per capita energy consumption than, say, Georgia: it's a
matter of high-rises versus sprawl, mass transit versus driving alone.
It's less obvious that Los Angeles is a much greener city than
Atlanta. But it is.
So is California a role model for climate policy? No and yes. Even if
America as a whole had matched California's conservation efforts, we'd
still be emitting about as much carbon dioxide now as we were in 1990.
That's too much.
But California's experience shows that serious conservation is a lot
less disruptive, imposes much less of a burden, than the skeptics
would have it. And the fact that a state government, with far more
limited powers than those at Washington's disposal, has been able to
achieve so much is a good omen for our ability to do a lot to limit
climate change, if and when we find the political will.