Deputy Chief of Mission Richard LeBaron speaks at the "Creating the Climate for Change" conference
09 November 2009
U.S. Domestic and International Actions on Climate Change
Richard LeBaron, Deputy Chief of Mission
Remarks to the UK Environment Agency’s Annual Conference
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about actions being taken in the United States on climate change. It is an honor to be included with such a distinguished group and a pleasure to talk to many of you who are the implementers of change.
No one knows more clearly than the people in this room that the effects of climate change are serious, and they are going to become more serious unless we are able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources. We need to meet the energy needs of rising populations with cleaner energy that is used more efficiently.
In my career as a diplomat, I have worked on some fairly complex issues, such as the Middle East peace process, but I cannot remember an issue that was quite as broad and complex, and that touched as many areas of our lives, as climate change does. New technologies, new ways of doing business, new policies, new financial tools – we’ll need them all. And the sooner, the better.
Copenhagen is going to be an important milestone on this road to a new energy future. The implacable nature of climate change and political concerns over energy security mean that we cannot continue with business as usual. Our energy system thirty years ago wasn’t much different than it is now. But our energy system in thirty years will be radically different than today’s.
Using a few real examples, I’d like to describe to you some of the programs that are underway in the United States that deal with specific aspects of climate change, issues that many of you deal with daily. Because of our limited time, I will focus on two examples of what has come to be known as “mitigation,” simply defined as reducing emissions of CO2 so that the effects of climate change are reduced. I hope we can find another occasion to discuss “adaptation,” including perhaps a dialogue on how best to assemble comprehensive approaches to the scourge of flooding.
One example of mitigation from Denver in my home state of Colorado encapsulates not only the problem and the solution, but the way our political system manages big issues. Denver wanted to expand its public transportation system. As usual, funding was the issue. Denver’s solution, according to one news report, was “visionary” but it also was a tough slog through the thickets of local government and project financing. The Denver Metropolitan Transit District, which includes Denver and six surrounding counties, has the power to tax. In 1997, supporters proposed a referendum to raise the tax to pay for an expanded transport system. It was voted down. But in 2004, after years of careful work to build support, another referendum was proposed and approved by voters to create 122 more miles of light rail and 59 new stations. To pay for it, the voters authorized raising the local sales tax by 0.4%. The sales tax increase was enough to cover 32% of the projected $6.1 billion cost. Another 23% came from the Transit District. 20% came from a federal transportation grant. 9% came from public-private partnerships. 3.5% came from a transportation infrastructure fund. 3% came from other federal grants. 2% came from local funding. Read more…
