Bill would measure emissions

Despite legislation addressing the issue, Nevada is not taking the steps to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say could lead to dire consequences for the state, including worsening drought and wildfire conditions.

“The reality is that we really don’t have decades any longer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Dan Geary, Nevada spokesman for the National Environmental Trust.

“Scientists tell us that even cutting the amount that we’re increasing emissions isn’t enough. Anything other than an actual reduction in emissions spells disaster.”

State Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, introduced a bill in the current legislative session that would survey greenhouse gas emissions in the state and set reduction goals.

But the part of the bill that would actually reduce emissions was taken out before the bill could be heard.

What’s left of the bill would inventory greenhouse gas emissions in the state, determine a baseline on which future emissions reductions could be based, and create a voluntary emissions registry for companies.

Environmental groups still hail the bill, Nevada’s first-ever state legislation directly addressing climate change, as a step forward.

But they say time is running out to study the issue; it’s time to take action.

“This bill is really just a first step toward tackling the problem of greenhouse gas emissions in this state,” said Scot Rutledge of the Nevada Conservation League.

“It’s critical, because it’s the No. 1 piece of legislation brought before our Legislature that actually addresses the issue of global warming. But what do we do once we have a registry (of emissions) in place?”

Other legislation has sought to create cleaner energy in Nevada, but this bill is said to be the first to look directly at existing greenhouse gas emissions.

Nevadans want action on the issue, according to a recent poll.

A survey of 600 registered voters statewide, conducted by the national Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies earlier this year, found that 64 percent were calling for action to be taken to curb global warming.

Thirty-six percent of those polled agreed with the idea that “global warming has been established as a very serious problem, and strong, immediate measures are necessary.”

Another 28 percent said “there is enough evidence that global warming is taking place and some action should be taken.”

Nineteen percent said more research should be done before action is taken, and 17 percent believed concern about global warming was greatly exaggerated.

The poll carries a margin of error of 4 percentage points in either direction.

“Overwhelming majorities of voters across the state and of every demographic and partisan group want to take action to protect future generations from the impact of this phenomenon,” the pollster wrote in analyzing the survey’s findings.

In the survey, 54 percent of those polled said the state should do more to reduce emissions, and 68 percent said Nevada should join other states in the region to cap pollution.

With no major federal action to reduce greenhouse gases and increasingly urgent warnings from scientists and environmentalists about global warming’s effects, states and even cities and counties have increasingly taken their own measures to reduce emissions.

In February, the governors of Arizona, California, Oregon, New Mexico and Washington banded together in a pact to reduce greenhouse gases regionally.

The five states involved in the Western regional pact have all instituted emissions reduction goals, four of them by governor’s executive order.

The regional agreement is supposed to allow them to make a common goal and trade emissions across state lines.

Nevada is not part of the regional pact, and Gov. Jim Gibbons says he does not want the state to join it.

Titus’ Senate Bill 422 would have given the Silver State its first mandatory emissions reduction scheme, also through a cap-and-trade program.

But that part of the bill was removed, largely at the behest of the state Division of Environmental Protection, which said it couldn’t administer proposed caps on emissions.

Dante Pistone, spokesman for the environmental division, acknowledged that the division sought to change the bill that was originally introduced.

“Our concern was that the initial bill jumped right to the solution rather than looking at the extent of the situation and gathering the data and the research first,” Pistone said.

“It was premature. We’re not saying a solution isn’t warranted. We’re just saying a solution was premature at that point.”

Rutledge of the conservation league noted that the division is working to create a cap-and-trade system for mercury emissions and questioned why it couldn’t do the same thing for greenhouse gases.

The bill now being considered, to inventory greenhouse gas emissions and create a registry, passed the Senate Natural Resources Committee on April 13 and appears to have the support needed to pass the Legislature.

Rutledge said a similar situation exists with Gibbons’ creation of a “Climate Change Advisory Committee” earlier this month.

Although the panel’s creation is a step in the right direction, Rutledge said, it too must have a mandate to move past studying the problem and start doing something about it.

“The governor created this committee, the scope of which is to look at how to create reductions,” he said. “But we already know how to do it, and we can’t keep waiting to implement it. We need the political will to move forward, and from the executive branch we’re not seeing that. We’re not seeing the leadership.”

The conservation league has a seat on the committee, which includes scientists, natural resources officials and industry representatives.

“This panel is looking at how the state of Nevada actually produces carbon-based emissions, how we can effectively deal with those in an environmentally sound manner without jeopardizing our economy,” the governor said in a recent interview.

But Gibbons said he is opposed to Nevada entering into regional partnership to address the issue, such as the cap-and-trade agreement recently formed by the five Western governors.

Gibbons said he was against joining with other states “because what goes on in California doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the right thing for Nevada. We are a completely different economy than California.”

He said pollution from California is a major source of air quality problems that affect the Las Vegas area.

“I certainly hope that they improve their air quality,” he said. “What I don’t want to do is just simply look at California and say California is the model for what Nevada should do. I don’t think so.”

Gibbons said Nevada should rather be preparing to protect itself from the effects of other states’ actions.

“What you have to do is look at how do we prepare for a future where states like California are making decisions, Arizona’s making decisions, Oregon, all of our neighbors who border us are making decisions about carbon-based emissions,” Gibbons said.

“We need to be prepared, because what they do could affect the state of Nevada dramatically, could affect our economy, could affect transportation issues in the state of Nevada.”

Gibbons said he didn’t want to put Nevada at an economic disadvantage compared to other states.

Rutledge said the governor’s opposition to regional partnership was disappointing.

With the bulk of emissions in Nevada coming from coal-fired power plants all owned by the same power company, Rutledge said, any cap-and-trade regime confined within the state would essentially leave Nevada Power trading emissions credits with itself.

Nevada will have to join with other states to make cap-and-trade practical, he said.

“The state is going to have to look outside to find market-based solutions. We need a regional beginning, which will probably eventually go national.”

A representative of the utility said Nevada Power supports Titus’ bill and thinks it is a good start.

“We’re taking baby steps,” said Judy Stokey, the company’s government affairs director. “You’ve got to take little baby steps on stuff like this. Our environmental department’s position is that we should find out exactly what we have first, collect this data and then see where to go from there.”