Though the federal government has yet to pass any policy mandating reduction of greenhouse gases, municipal, state and regional policies are proliferating at a rapid pace in the United States.

1.1 STATE POLICIES ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Due in large part to the failure of the federal government to adopt policies to address climate change, states have enacted their own binding emission reduction requirements.  As a result of the state initiatives, it is the states, not the federal government that are at the cutting edge of mandatory climate policy in the United States.

“And the most exciting part for me is that this will lead to us leading the way for other states and for other nations. Other countries, like India, China, Brazil and Mexico will join us when they see all the great work we are doing.”              
        - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, 2006

CALIFORNIA

This year, California further proved itself to be a national leader in reducing global warming pollution and increasing clean energy solutions when Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also called AB32. AB32 charges the California Air Resources Board (CARB) with establishing a plan to meet California’s progressive emissions reductions plans:
•    Reduce to 2000 levels by 2010;
•    1990 levels by 2020;
•    80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050

The mandatory statewide cap will take effect in 2012 for significant sources of emissions.  This legislation, which is the most stringent state legislation passed in the U.S. to date, makes California a national leader in climate change mitigation.  In addition to reducing the state’s emissions, the Global Warming Solutions Act is expected to generate new jobs and income.  Economists from the University of California found that the implementation of policies to meet AB 32’s 2020 goal could increase the gross state product by approximately $60 billion and create over 20,000 new jobs.¹

In October 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger also teamed up with Governor Pataki of New York to link California’s emissions trading reduction regime with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative discussed above. Although specifics of how the initiatives will be linked have not been worked out yet, adding California to the trading system will surely strengthen the U.S. CO2 cap and trade program. 

In addition to AB 32, Governor Schwarzenegger also signed several other bills in September to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions.  SB 107 requires that investor owned utilities generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010, updating a previous state target year of 2017.  AB 1925 requires the California Energy Commission to research and make recommendations on the capture and storage of industrial carbon dioxide. In August 2006, the governor signed legislation to finalize the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, which seeks to achieve one million solar roofs by 2018 by requiring developers of over 50 new single family homes to include solar power as a standard option beginning in 2011, raising the cap on credits for installing solar power systems into homes and businesses and requiring the California Energy Commission to create installation guides, eligibility criteria, and equipment rating standards for solar systems that receive state incentives.²  

Governor Schwarzenegger isn’t just taking action in California.  In July 2006, the governor met with Prime Minister Tony Blair to discuss collaboration on climate change.  Bypassing the U.S. federal government, the leaders signed an historic agreement that commits the United Kingdom and California to share best practices on carbon trading, share results of individual research on the economics of climate change, collaborate on technology research, and enhance linkages between their respective scientific communities.³  

California is also leading the country in the effort to reduce pollution coming from cars. Recognizing that approximately one-third of U.S. CO2 emissions come from transportation, in July 2002, California enacted legislation aimed at reducing emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in California.

The California statute, authored by Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, directs the California Air Resources Board to achieve the maximum feasible cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gases from California’s motor vehicles. The CARB held a series of public hearings and workshops through which it developed a target requiring approximately a 30 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.⁴  The standards were approved on September 15, 2005 and took effect January 1, 2006. The rule applies only to year 2009 and beyond. In California, where transportation accounts for 56 percent of greenhouse gases, AB 1493 will make a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.⁵

Since the approval of California’s rigorous auto emissions standards, ten states: New York, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington, have followed suit and passed similar legislation, each currently in various stages of the implementation process in respective states.⁶  While this shows yet again that Americans are demanding innovation from U.S. businesses to clean up global warming pollution, the auto industry has refused to take up the challenge.

The auto industry in the U.S. has a long history of attempting to block pro-consumer regulation of their industry.  Therefore, it is no surprise that in December 2004, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and 13 California dealerships filed suit to block adoption of the regulations.   As they did with regulations requiring installation of seatbelts and clean air technologies, the auto industry turned to their lawyers, rather than their engineers to face this challenge. Their suit argues that requiring manufacturers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is similar to setting fuel economy standards, which are set by the federal government.  California, has responded that this is a measure to address vehicle emissions—over which the Clean Air Act clearly gives them authority.⁷  In September 2006, the first oral arguments took place in a federal court in California.  California along with environmental groups argued to have the case dismissed, however, the judge ruled that the suit will stand and the case is slated for trial on January 30, 2007.⁸

COMPREHENSIVE STATE PLANS

“Addressing climate change not only protects future generations, it also strengthens our economy.”
         - Gov. Bill Richardson, June 9, 2005

State global warming plans are one of the most interesting developments in greenhouse gas regulation in recent years.   Several states recently have passed legislation with carbon emissions reduction targets, and others are poised to do so—having created commissions to explore possible targets.  Some climate policy skeptics assert that this is merely a Democrat political tactic aimed at putting pressure on the Bush administration. However, two of the states with the most extensive climate policy efforts, California and New York, are lead by high–profile Republican Governors Schwarzenegger and Pataki. More recently, states such as New Mexico, North Carolina and Arizona launched processes to develop state climate plans.  The following highlights some of the recently promulgated comprehensive state plans to address climate change.

New Mexico

Governor Bill Richardson signed an executive order in June 2005 that directs New Mexico’s Climate Change Advisory Group to find ways to reduce the state’s total greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2012, 10 percent below 2000 by 2020, and 75 percent below 2000 by 2050.   The advisory group is composed of approximately 40 representatives from industry, agriculture, environmental nonprofits, tribes, universities and national labs.⁹  Governor Richardson recently announced his plans to ensure New Mexico become a national leader on climate solutions, which include¹⁰ :

•    A state-wide Clean Cars Program that will reduce air pollution and global warming emissions.
•    An increase in the state’s renewable energy portfolio standard to 15% by 2015 and 25% by 2020.
•    A $23 million investment in energy efficiency and green buildings, with a focus on funding for energy efficient public school buildings.
•    A $3 million package of tax incentives for biofuels, energy efficient appliances and for the renewable energy industry.
•    An endorsement of a $2.5 million investment in the Energy Savers program to help low-income New Mexicans.

Arizona

In September 2006, following a year-long research project by the advisory group she created, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed an executive order creating an action plan for Arizona to reduce its emissions. The order instructs the state to reduce its emissions to 2000 levels by 2020, although it aims to be at 2000 levels by 2012, and for a 50 percent reduction in 2000 levels by 2040. To do this, the plan focuses on improving energy efficiency for buildings and appliances, increasing the development of renewable energy, increasing the production and use of biodiesel and providing incentives for hybrid cars and other low emission vehicles.¹¹ 

North Carolina

In September 2005, North Carolina Governor Mike Easley signed Senate Bill 1134 establishing the Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change.   The statute establishes a public-private commission representing numerous interest groups as well as elected officials.  The commission is charged with examining issues related to global warming and the “emerging carbon economy” and to determine whether it is appropriate for the state to establish a “global warming pollutant reduction goal.”  If the commission does determine a goal would be appropriate, it is charged with developing a recommended target.¹² 

New Jersey

New Jersey was one of the earliest states to take action on climate change when in 1998 it announced plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 3.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2005 and entered into an agreement to explore trading emission reduction credits for carbon dioxide.  In October 2005, acting Governor Richard J. Codey took the next step in efforts to combat climate change by classifying carbon dioxide as an air contaminant.  The governor’s office said the newly adopted regulations amend several air pollution control rules to reflect current scientific consensus that carbon dioxide is an air contaminant.  This step is expected to pave the way for New Jersey to participate in regional efforts to reduce CO2.¹³ 

REQUIREMENTS ON ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION

Coal fuels the majority of power production in the United States, in 2005 accounting for 49.7 percent of electricity generation.¹⁴ As a result, the electricity production sector is responsible for the largest portion of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.  In recent years, a number of states have implemented measures to reduce this pollution.  These measures generally take one of two forms: 1) mandatory emissions reduction or offset requirements for fossil fuel power production; or 2) mandates requiring that a portion of power come from non-emitting, renewable energy sources.

Mandatory CO2 Emissions Reductions

On top of regional agreements to cut CO2 pollution like those mentioned above, several states have imposed mandatory requirements on electric sector CO2 emissions. In 1997, Oregon became the first state to adopt legislation regulating greenhouse gases.  The law requires all new power plants to meet a CO2 emissions standard that is 17 percent less CO2 than the most efficient base-load gas plant currently operating in the U.S.¹⁵  Similarly, in 2001 Massachusetts enacted legislation regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.  Specifically, the Massachusetts statute requires that six of its oldest, dirtiest power plants reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide 10 percent below a 1997-1999 baseline by 2006.  If the plant chooses to comply by repowering, it has until 2008 to do so.¹⁶ New Hampshire followed suit in 2002 requiring power plants to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2010.¹⁷  Most recently, Washington state passed a law that requires power plant operators to offset 20 percent of the carbon dioxide their plants would emit over 30 years.¹⁸

Mandatory Renewable Electricity Laws   
   
Renewable electricity standards have emerged as one of the most popular policies to promote clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  To date, 21 states and Washington, D.C. have implemented laws requiring minimum renewable energy standards.   According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, state renewable energy standard laws and regulations will provide support for nearly 32,000 megawatts of renewable power by 2017—an increase of 237 percent over total 1997 U.S. levels (excluding hydropower.)  This represents enough clean power to meet the electricity needs of 20.3 million homes. 

By 2017, annual new renewable energy production from all state renewable energy standards programs will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 77.1 million metric tons. 

1.2 REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENTS

While individual state regimes can provide useful models for future national climate change policies, regional agreements allow for more experimentation with carbon trading and the implementation of other mechanisms that many expect to be fundamental elements of any future national regulatory regime. This section highlights some regional agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase renewable energy.

CAPPING EMISSIONS FROM POWER PLANTS:

THE REGIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS INITIATIVE (RGGI)

In 2006, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative passed the orders necessary for each state involved to begin implementing the program,  and officially beginning the first U.S. regional plan to cap U.S. power plant emissions and establish a market based trading mechanism.

RGGI began in April 2003, when New York Governor George Pataki invited the governors of the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states to join New York in discussions to develop a regional cap-and-trade program covering carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Eight of those states agreed to join discussions¹⁹ while Maryland and Pennsylvania elected to send representatives to observe the process.  In August 2003, the RGGI “Staff Working Group,” including staff representatives from the participating states drafted an action plan laying out a process to develop a regional cap-and-trade program covering carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.  This plan was approved in September of 2003, and the states launched a formal stakeholder process in March 2004.

The RGGI action plan establishes guiding principles for the program design, including: emphasizing uniformity across the participating states; building on existing successful cap-and-trade programs; ensuring that the program is expandable and flexible, allowing other states or jurisdictions to join the initiative; starting the program simply by focusing on a core cap-and-trade program for power plants; and focusing on reliable offset protocols in a subsequent design phase.²⁰ In December 2005, the governors of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to implement the requirements of RGGI with the goal of capping emissions at current levels in 2009 and then reducing emissions by 10 percent in 2019.²¹  Maryland is slated to join RGGI by June 2007 as required by the Healthy Air Act of 2006.  Maryland’s Governor Erlich opposed both the act and the state’s participation in RGGI, but was forced to sign the act due to pressure from the state legislature.²²

 In August 2006, the participating states issued a model rule, which provides the basis for each state to implement the RGGI program.  The central component of the enacted initiative is a multi-state cap-and-trade program with a market-based emissions trading system.

NEW ENGLAND GOVERNORS/EASTERN CANADIAN PREMIER

In 2001, the governors of the six New England states joined five Eastern Canadian premiers in a pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, with a further 10 percent reduction by 2020.  Within several decades, their Climate Change Action Plan aims to cut emissions 75 to 85 percent below current levels.

The NEG/ECP Climate Action Plan requires each state and province to develop its own implementation plan.  Several states, including Connecticut, Maine, and Massachusetts have already passed legislation adopting the plan’s emissions reduction targets.²³

WESTERN GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION

The Western Governors Association (WGA), which includes 19 Western state governors, adopted the Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative in 2004 and in June 2006 approved a plan to provide strategies for the implementation of the initiative’s major goals:

•    Development of 30,000 megawatts (30 GW) of clean energy by 2015;
•    A 20 percent increase in energy efficiency by 2020; and
•    Preparing the Western energy system to adapt to future emissions regulations.²⁴

As the U.S. currently has only 10 GW of installed wind capacity, a pledge to develop 30 GW of clean energy greatly increases the country’s renewable infrastructure. While the initiative calls for “clean” energy and not specifically wind production, for the sake of comparison the American Wind Energy Association suggests that 30GW of wind energy can be thought of as generating as much electricity at 13.5 millions barrels of oil or 40.2 million tons of coal and would avoid 48 million metric tons of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere.²⁵

1.3 MUNICIPAL CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITMENTS

"Mayors across America are making it clear; we’re not going to wait for the federal government to do something to prevent the production of greenhouse gases. We’re going to step up and provide the leadership at the local level, city by city.”
                Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, June 13, 2005

On February 16, 2005 the Kyoto Protocol became law for the 141 countries that had ratified it.  On that same day, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels launched an initiative to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol through leadership and action by at least 141 American cities.  Mayor Nickels challenged cities to sign onto the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement.  Under the agreement, participating cities commit to:

•    Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities;

•    Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target suggested for the United State in the Kyoto Protocol – seven percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and

•    Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan Climate Stewardship Act, which would establish a national emissions trading system.²⁶

Mayor Nickels surpassed his initial goal of 141 cities ratifying the agreement. As of October 2006, 319 mayors representing over 51.4 million Americans have accepted the challenge.²⁷ In addition, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, an organization of more than 1000 mayors from cities with a population over 30,000, unanimously adopted the Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement at their meeting on June 13, 2005. ²⁸

CLINTON CLIMATE INITIATIVE

Former President Bill Clinton launched the Clinton Climate Initiative in August 2006 to facilitate cooperation on greenhouse gas reduction between major world cities.  The Initiative is supported by a partnership between the Clinton Foundation and the Large Cities Climate Leadership Group.  The participating U.S. cities include Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.  The first project of the Initiative is to create a purchasing consortium among the participating cities in order to drive down prices for energy efficient products and promote their use.²⁹ It also seeks to establish common measurement tools and internet communication systems so that participating cities can evaluate the effectiveness of the program.

1.4 U.S. CONGRESS

“In every generation, there are several defining moments when we have the chance to take a new course that will leave our children a better world. Addressing the threat of global climate change is one such moment.”
        Senator Barack Obama, June 22, 2004

Notwithstanding the utter lack of leadership on climate change at the federal level, the past two years saw some interesting developments that put the U.S. Congress on the path toward adopting mandatory limits on global warming emissions.  This section details many, but not all, of the progressive bills that have been introduced in the Congress in 2005 and 2006, including non-binding resolutions, bills that call for deep cuts in emissions by 2050 and those with sectoral targets for various industries.

Non-binding resolutions

The Bingaman-Domenici Resolution

On June 22 2005, a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate voted in favor of a resolution calling for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.  The amendment stated, “Congress should enact a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases.” The amendment also specified that the program should not significantly harm the U.S. economy and should encourage comparable actions by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.³⁰ The amendment took the form of a non-binding “Sense of the Senate Resolution”.  Even though it is non-binding, the Bingaman resolution shows that there is now a clear majority in the U.S. Senate favoring some form of mandatory emissions policy.  

Dramatic reductions by 2050

Jeffords-Boxer Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2006

Senator Jeffords, ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, along with lead cosponsor Senator Boxer, introduced the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act on July 20, 2006.  The bill requires a progressive reduction of CO2 emissions to 1990 levels between 2010 and 2020, then 1/3 of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, 2/3 of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2040, and finally to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  The bill supports numerous strategies for CO2 reduction including regulations on CO2 emissions produced by power plants, automobiles, and carbon-intensive industries, mandatory national energy efficiency standards, an increased share of national electricity production by renewable sources to 20 percent by 2020, and investment in carbon sequestration and other innovative technologies.  In addition, the bill has a built-in emergency mechanism that allows for further regulation by the EPA if the average global temperature increases above 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average or if the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 surpasses 450 parts per million.  The National Academy of Sciences is the designated oversight authority and will report to the EPA and Congress on the national progress of meeting the bill’s goals.  The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on July 20, 2006.

Kerry Global Warming Reduction Act of 2006

The Global Warming Reduction Act of 2006 was introduced by Senator Kerry and cosponsor Senator Snowe on September 29, 2006 as an amendment to the Clean Air Act of 2005.  The bill seeks to freeze greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 and then reduce them to 65 percent below 2000 levels by 2050.  Similar in emissions reduction strategy to the Jeffords-Boxer bill, the Kerry amendment calls for regulation of automobile emissions, investment in renewable energy and energy efficient technology, and an increase in renewable electricity production to 20 percent of the U.S. total by 2020.

Waxman Safe Climate Act of 2006

The Safe Climate Act, introduced by Representative Waxman on June 20, 2006, sets an initial target of capping greenhouse gas emissions at 2009 levels in 2010 followed by a 2 percent emissions reduction per year until 1990 levels are reached in 2020.  In 2020 emissions will be reduced by 5 percent per year until 2050 when emissions will then be 80 percent lower than 1990 levels.  The bill requires that the EPA implement a cap-and-trade program as well as other regulations including automobile emissions standards equivalent to those passed in California.  In addition, the percentage of renewable sources used for national electricity production will increase to 20 percent of the total by 2020, and utilities are required to obtain each year 1 percent of their energy supplies through energy efficiency improvements at customer facilities through the year 2020.  Progress in achieving these targets will be evaluated every 5 years by the National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council, which can recommend additional measures if necessary.  The bill, which now has 110 cosponsors, was referred to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on July 17, 2006.

Sectoral Emissions Reductions

Clean Air Planning Act of 2006

Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Clean Air Subcommittee, introduced the Clean Air Planning Act of 2006 on May 3, 2006.  Cosponsored by Senators Alexander, Chafee, Gregg, and Feinstein, this bill seeks substantial reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants through regulatory mechanisms and a cap-and-trade program.  Specifically, the bill calls for a capping of CO2 emissions at 2006 levels by 2010 and a subsequent reduction of emissions to 2001 levels by 2015.  Cap-and-trade programs will be initiated in order to facilitate emissions reductions.  On May 4, 2006 the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

Climate Stewardship Act

Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman first introduced the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA) in 2003.  The CSA addresses emissions from power plants, transportation, and large industrial sources thus covering approximately 75 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.  The bill requires the reduction of emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and allows for emissions trading and offsets to meet reduction requirements.³¹  The CSA was the first mandatory climate change bill ever subject to a floor vote in the Senate.  In 2003, it garnered 43 votes in favor.³² When offered as an amendment to the Energy Policy Act 2005, the measure failed in a vote of 38 to 60.  Several senators who voted for the measure previously decided not to support it in 2005 based on new subsidies for nuclear power.³³ Rep. Wayne Gilchrest introduced a companion bill to the Senate Climate Stewardship Act in the House in February 2005.³⁴  

1.5 U.S. JUDICIARY

In true American spirit, activists are increasingly turning to the courts to seek climate justice. In a society founded on the importance of rule of law, litigation is a natural way to hold politicians accountable for protecting the environment and future generations. Over the last few years many cases were introduced targeting government lending agencies, demanding that CO2 be recognized and regulated as a pollutant and protecting the unique environment and culture of indigenous people of the Arctic. 2006 saw an historic moment when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear its first case regarding climate change.

Regulation of Carbon Dioxide

In June 2003, Massachusetts filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to regulate air pollutants that contribute to global warming.  Massachusetts was subsequently joined by 10 other states and American Samoa.  In this case, the EPA maintains that it does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, whereas Massachusetts argues that not only does the EPA have the authority, but that the EPA is required to regulate these pollutants unless its own scientific research can prove that they are not potentially harmful to U.S. citizens.  Showing the importance of this litigation, this case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling will have tremendous impact on the future of federal climate change regulation.  Even if the court rules that the EPA does have the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA will not be required to immediately create regulation, because it must first find that greenhouse gases qualify as harmful enough to warrant regulation.  Despite the uncertainty of the outcome, the fact that a climate change case has reached the Supreme Court will provide the impetus necessary for Congress to legislate federal climate change policy lest its influence in this area be usurped by the judiciary.  

Responsible Lending

In 2002, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and the City of Boulder, Colorado sued the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) for providing over $32 billion to fossil fuels projects over a 10-year period without evaluating their impact on global or U.S. climate according to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations.   The cities of Arcata and Oakland, California subsequently joined with the plaintiffs in the suit.  In August 2005, a landmark ruling was made in a California federal court against the federal government that allowed this case to proceed.  It is the first time that a federal court has granted legal standing for a case challenging the federal government for failing to examine the impact of its actions on the earth’s climate and U.S. citizens.  A final decision in the case is expected any day.

Saving the Polar Bear

In December 2005, the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and Natural Resources Defense Council sued the Bush administration for its failure to recognize a petition filed to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The petition argues that polar bears are threatened since they depend on sea ice for virtually all aspects of their existence – from hunting to mating and raising their young – and that because global warming is causing sea ice to melt at a rapid pace, the very survival of the polar bear species is at risk. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to rule on the petition by the end of the year.

Protecting a Homeland

In 2005, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference along with the Center for International Environmental Law filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, asking for relief in violations of human rights caused by greenhouse gas emissions coming from the United States and claiming that global warming caused by these emissions threaten the survival of Arctic peoples. The suit charges that the human rights violations faced by the Inuit put the U.S. in violation of the 1948 American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man and asks the Commission to hold hearings to determine whether these rights have been violated. This case is extremely important as it not only attempts to protect Inuit culture but also firmly places climate change as a human rights issue.



__________
¹ _{Union of Concerned Scientists, AB 32: Global Warming Solutions Act fact sheet, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_california/California_Legislative_Update.html}

²   _{State of California, Office of the Governor, Fact Sheet: Million Solar Roofs Plan, http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/3998/}

³  _{State of California, Office of the Governor, Press Release-July 31, 2006, http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/2770/}

⁴
    _{California Air Resources Board, Final Regulation Order, September 23, 2004, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/grnhsgas/grnhsgas.htm, see also http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicles_health/californias-global-warming-vehicle-law.html,}

⁵ _{Union of Concerned Scientists, California Regulates Global Warming Emissions from Vehicles, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicles_health/californias-global-warming-vehicle-law.html}

⁶
    _{Pew Center on Global Climate Change, States Poised to Require Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards, http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/vehicle_ghg_standard.cfm.}
 
⁷_{Danny Hakim, “Steering California's Fight on Emissions”, New York Times, Dec. 9,2004.}
  
⁸_{Union of Concerned Scientists, Automakers v, The People, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/avp/}

⁹ _{State of New Mexico, Office of the Governor, “Governor bill Richardson Announces Historic Effort to Combat Climate Change”, June 9, 2005, http://www.governor.state.nm.us/press/2005/june/060905_3.pdf.}

¹⁰ _{Environment New Mexico, Press Release “New Mexico Demonstrates Leadership on Solutions to Global Warming,}

¹¹ _{State of Arizona, Office of the Governor, Press Release 9/8/06. http://www.governor.state.az.us/dms/upload/NR_090806_CCAG.pdf}

¹²_{State of Arizona Executive Office, News Release, Governor Napolitano Issues Executive Order to Promote Energy Efficiency, ” September 8, 2006.}

¹³ _{New Jersey, Office of the Acting Governor Richard J. Codey, “Codey Takes Crucial Step to Combat Global Warming”, October 18, 2005, http://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/governor/njnewsline/view_article.pl?id=2779.}

¹⁴_{U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html}

¹⁵_{Oregon’s Carbon Dioxide Standard for New Energy Facilities, http://www.orgegon.gov/ENERGY/SITING/docs/ccnewst.pdf .}

¹⁶_{Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Regulation 310 CMR 7.29.}

¹⁷_{New Hampshire House Bill 284-FN: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2002/hb0284.html}
 
¹⁸_{Washington State Department of Natural Resources, “Lands Commissioner Doug Sutherland praises new law     to reduce greenhouse gases,” March 31, 2004, http://www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/adm/comm/nr04_028.htm}

¹⁹_{Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.}

²⁰_{Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, About RGGI, http://www.rggi.org/about.htm}

²¹ _{Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_states/rggi/index.cfm}

²² _{H. Sterling Burnett, “Maryland Legislature Forces Governor into Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,” Environment News, June 1, 2006,}
²³_{Connecticut Public Act 04-252; Maine Climate Action Plan; Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan.}

²⁴_{Western Governors Association, Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative, http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/cdeac/index.htm}

²⁵_{American Wind Energy Association, 10GW Fact Sheet, http://www.awea.org/10GW.html}

²⁶_{City of Seattle, Office of the Mayor, US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/.}

²⁷_{City of Seattle, Office of the Mayor, US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/}

²⁸_{U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2005 Adopted Resolutions, Environment}

²⁹_{“President Clinton Launches Large Cities Climate Initiative,” Environment News Service, August 2, 2006,}

³⁰_{S Res. 866, H.R.6. [EAS] Section 1612.}

³¹_{S 342, Introduced February 10, 2005}

³²_{S. Amendment 2028 to S. 139.  Not agreed to by a Yea-Nay vote of 43 to 55. October 30, 2005}

³³_{S Amendment 826 to H.R. 6.  Not agreed to by a Yea-Nay vote of 38-60. June 21, 2005}

³⁴_{H.R. 759, introduced Febrary10, 2005.}

³⁵_{Doug Kendall, “Supreme Court Preview: Global Warming,” American Constitution Society blog, September 26, 2006,}
 
³⁶_{Emma Marris, “Special Reports: Climate in Court,” Nature, October 2006, vol. 443, issue 5, p486.}
 
³⁷_{http://www.climatelawsuit.org/}

³⁸_ibid.