The US view of climate change has shifted since 1997 - more is needed

An economic model developed by Argonne National Laboratory was used to project how each of these scenarios would affect the United States' energy technology and CO2 emissions over the next 30 years. It is useful to identify commonalities among the scenarios.

For example, natural gas use and distributed electric generation increase in all three hypothetical futures, continuing current trends. Another commonality is that in 2035 we are still using a lot of today's technology because of inertia in the energy sector.

With national climate policy deliberately excluded from each of these scenarios the most striking finding of the analysis was that emissions rise even with the most optimistic assumptions. In Technology Triumphs, emissions rise by 15 per cent over 2000 levels by 2035; by 20 per cent in Turbulent World, and by 50 per cent in Awash in Oil and Gas.

Each scenario envisions a future in which the only national policy measures are voluntary. The fact that none of these scenarios - even the most optimistic - resulted in any reduction in emissions highlights the fundamental need for a mandatory carbon emissions policy. To state it more clearly, no combination of voluntary programs and research and development incentives will put us on a path that sustains economic growth, enhances economic security, and allows the U.S. to participate appropriately and proportionally in protecting the global climate.

Right now voluntary effort is all we have. Rather than establishing a target for emission reductions - as many of the companies mentioned have done - the Bush administration's climate strategy sets a voluntary "greenhouse gas intensity" target for the nation. The idea is to reduce the ratio of greenhouse emissions to U.S. economic output, or GDP, with a target of an 18 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas intensity by 2012 . This White House target will allow actual emissions to grow by 12 per cent over the same period.

That's not progress. Progress means a real-world domestic energy policy engaging business and society to reduce the U.S. contribution to this problem. It means adopting a clear, mandatory goal for emission cuts, with sensible, business-friendly rules that give companies flexibility to meet the goal cost-effectively. That would be progress and would put the federal government in the company of the many businesses, entire countries and U.S. states that are already addressing this issue.

In 2002, we released a report, Greenhouse and Statehouse: The Evolving State Government Role in Climate Change, that surveyed the current level of state activity and showed that measures which are controversial at federal level, such as renewable portfolio standards and mandatory reporting of emissions, have been implemented at state level with little dissent.

Texas and 13 other states, for example, now require utilities to generate a specified share of their power from renewable sources. Five states have carbon sequestration programs, three have reporting programs for greenhouse gas emissions - two of which are mandatory. In addition, two states have overall caps on their emissions, and one, California, is working on direct controls on emissions from motor vehicles.

Then there is the effort of New York State, under Governor Pataki, to create a regional market in which power plants can buy and sell carbon dioxide credits. To date, nine of ten states contacted by the governor have indicated that they are interested. This work is vitally important, in reducing emissions, in showing that progress is possible and in demonstrating that we can protect the climate and promote economic growth.

As businesses, states, and localities begin to take greenhouse gas emissions seriously and take action to reduce their contribution to the problem they create a climate that is conducive to broader changes at national and international levels.