Michigan policymakers work on climate change – even as some avoid the term

Has global warming cooled off as an issue in Michigan?

Just looking at how it is, or is not, dealt with by state leaders, one could guess it is in a deep freeze.

It is not discussed daily among lawmakers and policymakers, at least not publicly. The closest the Legislature has to any legislation dealing with the issue is HB 4499, introduced by Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, that would put new limits on diesel emissions. The bill has not had any hearings.

But the House did approve HR 105, sponsored by Rep. Matt Lori (R-Constantine), that declared April 27 as Save the Frogs Day in Michigan, and said climate change is among the numerous issues threatening frog and toad species here and around the world.

Rarely do the terms climate change or global warming come up in the state. But it is an issue, and it is being acted on. Just don’t call it climate change.

Action is more indirect than direct, officials say, through issues such as public health and energy efficiency.

But there is even some work being done on proposals first raised in 2009 with the state’s Climate Action Plan, developed under then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm. (Although supporters of that plan are quick to say not enough is being done. “The Legislature needs to dust that off and get to work on it,” aid Mike Garfield, with the Ecology Center in Ann Arbor.)

There is a growing acknowledgement that climate change is occurring, though some are still hesitant to suggest it is due to human activity.

Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, one of the staunchest legislative critics of environmentalists, said in an interview that he “did not dispute that the climate has warmed,” but still wasn’t convinced of the idea that human activity is the cause. “I’m not sure we’ve got the whole story” on the reasons for global warming, he said.

As a whole, the public is more accepting of climate change, but that has been hard to translate into action.

That seems to be helped by reported research on the weather trends. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy recently released a study that warned ongoing global warming could affect power generation in the future, possibly leading to rolling blackouts.

Public belief has also been pushed by extreme weather events.

Hugh McDiarmid of the Michigan Environmental Council said it was hard to “characterize what people think.” Attitudes shift, sometimes based on immediate climatic issues, such as hurricanes.  Nonetheless, McDiarmid said, “inexorably the public is shifting” toward greater concern about climate change.

And he wished the public would talk about it more.

Garfield blamed some of the lack of public discussion on the failure of federal action on the issue.

Even then, he said, the issue is prominent in areas where the public has made it so, such as Ann Arbor, Traverse City and Grand Rapids. For example, three Ann Arbor legislators, all Democrats – Sen. Rebekah Warren, Rep. Jeff Irwin and Rep. Adam Zemke – joined in a statement last February when a major conference was taking place in Ann Arbor, saying that because greenhouse gas emissions tend to be higher per capita in the Midwest, action was needed at both the state and federal levels to promote cleaner energy.

Irwin is the only co-sponsor of Tlaib’s bill.

While direct action on climate change is quiet, McDiarmid said related issues such as health and energy, including renewable energy and energy efficiency, are taking place, and having a positive effect.

For example, late in 2012 the Public Service Commission issued a report showing the cost of renewable energy dropping, helping spur interest in its use. And McDiarmid said community input helped change plans by the Lansing-area Board of Water and Light to build a new coal-fired power plant and instead plan one running on natural gas.

A number of activists also praised Gov. Rick Snyder for saying the state needs to do more with renewable energy.

And some elements of the 2009 Climate Action Plan are underway. Both Consumers Energy and DTE Energy are involved in replacing current electric meters with so-called smart meters that will help encourage energy efficiency.

Also, the utilities are looking at power plant changes to reduce the use of coal. Consumers is proposing a new natural gas plant that will take some coal-fired plants offline.

McDiarmid said creation of the Detroit-area Regional Transit Authority will help reduce the number of emissions released as mass transit in the metro area improves.

Casperson, however, suggested different action should be taken. He cited an ongoing controversy on extending Co. Rd. 595 in Marquette County to a new mine. The proposal would go over wetlands, which the mining company and county road commission have proposed mitigating, but it would also reduce the total travel distance trucks going to and from the mine run by some 88-miles roundtrip.

Shorter trips would reduce emissions, and that is the kind of regulatory outlook that is needed, Casperson said.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Thu, 08/01/2013 - 9:26am
"Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, one of the staunchest legislative critics of environmentalists, said in an interview that he “did not dispute that the climate has warmed,” but still wasn’t convinced of the idea that human activity is the cause." Maybe he's right, although a significant portion of the scientific community seems to be convinced. The problem with waiting until we have 100% proof is that it will be too late. Conservatives are always pining for the past, reluctant to embrace the future. Whether or not it's a man made problem, what is so wrong about reducing our damage to the environment? We're the only species that destroys its own nest.
Chuck Jordan
Thu, 08/01/2013 - 10:11am
I'm just wondering what it will take before our legislators will do something. It would be nice to have legislators who lead.
Thu, 08/01/2013 - 1:23pm
They are leading........to the 19th century
Gerald Roston
Thu, 08/01/2013 - 2:56pm
Casperson never attended college, yet he feels sufficiently well-informed about a complex topic to disagree with 97% of the world leading climatologists, most of whom have earned doctoral degrees. Wonderful...
Barry Visel
Thu, 08/01/2013 - 7:57pm
Where to start! First, recall that if this was 10,000 years ago we would be living under thousands of feet of ice. We didn't make that climate, did we? Second, that nasty carbon stuff we don't seem to like was actually in the atmosphere before it was locked up by plants in that stuff called coal. Maybe that climate was pretty cool too ( no pun intended) . But, if we really think we can manage the climate, allow me to place my order. So, Mr. president and EPA, here 's what I want. Mostly sunny ( a few fluffy clouds for aesthetics), 75 degrees F ( plus 8, minus 10 degrees), a half to one inch of rain every 3 days or so, between the hours of 1 and 5 AM ( to keep things clean and plants growing), and one day of snow each year (what's Christmas without snow). Now, can we please get real with the general populace about the cost of climate change initiatives, and let the voters decide what we should or shouldn't pay for? For example, I don't appreciate having to pay a surcharge on my electric bill for energy efficiency programs, and then pay again to reimburse utilities for the lost KwH sales due to energy efficiency programs. Please, Bridge, could we please shed some light on all the details (cost) behind so called climate change initiatives?
Nick Fleezanis
Fri, 08/02/2013 - 4:17pm
Can we expect the people of this state to be concerned with climate change when they are unemployed, under-employed, and have lost income and benefits. Inflation tearing at their meager incomes while large corporations and banks are bailed out for poor management and risky business practices. A federal government that is turning our democracy into a police state with the military/security complex, banks. and multinational corporation dictating the governments actions. Legislators enriching themselves at the expense of the citizens of this country. And you expect people to be concerned about climate change. Get Real!
Lisa Knowles
Sat, 08/03/2013 - 5:20pm
The renewable energy industry could help with Nick's distraught plea from above. There seems to be a surplus of people looking for and skilled for manufacturing work. Why not get busy making renewable energy and all of the parts and pieces necessary to do so. And, food. How about making food? That will never fall short in demand and would employ thousands if not millions. Currently, we rely on a few monster businesses and monster farms to grow and make our food--which in my opinion lacks the integrity and quality that it should--think hormones to bolster production, antibiotics to prevent disease, and massive amounts of weed killer and farm equipment to grow crops in mass. We think it's so great to be able to produce all of this food in mass only to have problems surface that require hormones, antibiotics and Round Up to fix. Can't we spread out the animals and crops and spread out the wealth? We get a win-win situation. People can have jobs, animals will not have additives, people get to eat clean food, and we get less environmental impact. I would rather subsidize small farming and animal husbandry than continue to pay taxes to provide emergency relief funds and increases in insurance premiums for all of the natural disasters than continue to rise in the heat and carbon uptick.