Although the United States has been praised for its recent innovative shift toward renewable energy and green technology, some believe that much more can and should be done on the state level.
In a January Sustainable Business Oregon article, Tom Osdoba, the managing director of the Center for Sustainable Business Practices at the University’s Lundquist College of Business, advocated a “bottom-up” approach to sustainability in which state and local governments enact green practices instead of waiting for the federal government to catch on. 
“Innovation tends to happen on a smaller scale and move up, so it’s easier to try and innovate around policy development on a local and state level rather than on a national level where you have to work downward,” Osdoba said.
The state of Oregon, especially the city of Portland, has been making significant strides over the years in establishing itself as a leader in sustainable practices. According to a recent Bureau of Planning and Sustainability report, the amount of solid waste disposed per household decreased from 1,697 pounds in 1992 to 1,302 pounds in 2008. In addition, nearly 81.2 percent of the city’s residents subscribe to Portland’s recycling program.
Nevertheless, Osdoba said there is a lot of room for improvement.
“We could triple the amount of money that we’re spending on green technology and that still wouldn’t be enough,” Osdoba said.
Because of the decentralization of government, Osdoba said states have the flexibility and freedom to enacts laws and set precedents that can be used as a model for change on a much larger scale. In addition, changes on a localized level can be more effective because state and local governments are more aware of the technological trends developing in their own areas.
“We have a system of government that is very reactive, so it’s going to be slow on a national level to pick up trends,” Osboba said. “It’s a lot easier to spot trends and see how things will move forward faster if you look at the state or local level. It usually takes three or five states to really drive a federal action. If you were to go back and look at major policy initiatives that made a difference, almost every one of them will have some sort of example where that was done first at the state level, whether it is Massachusetts and Oregon in health care or California (in) environmental policy.”
Although there has been a significant amount of dialogue and interest generated by green technology, Osboda said little progress has been made in federal legislation because few legislators are aware of the technological advances that companies are producing in individual states across the country.
“I think one of the challenges on the federal level is that they’re one step too removed from the research commercialization activities to be able to do that very well,” Osdoba said. “Partnering with states and research labs together would allow them to be able to better see what’s emerging more quickly.”
Nationally, Osdoba is noticing a significant shift in research funding over the years, because many private-sector companies are no longer willing to fund research projects. As a result, much of the research that is being conducted in the public sector is in places like research laboratories and universities.
“To get more research going, we’re going to need more resources,” Osdoba said. “Once you spend less on research and development, it’s not like you’re hanging onto that money — it’s going somewhere else — so it’s going to be a struggle to get those resources mobilized again.”
Despite the risks associated with investing in green technology, Osdoba said such risks are necessary on a public level because private institutions no longer have the ability to fund such research. In the end, the federal government has the ability to mobilize resources from a broad base — such as enacting negligible carbon taxes to fund research initiatives in renewable energy — and can play a significant role in achieving breakthroughs in green technology.
[email protected]