Hardly.

The green push continues unabated, though you’d hardly know that if you read the environmental blogs or if you listen to the lamentations of companies salivating at the commissions they’ll make in the emission trading game.

As Richard Gledhill, head of carbon markets at PricewaterhouseCoopers, told the Wall Street Journal, “It’s very frustrating at this stage that we haven’t got a more-comprehensive agreement.”

But for most companies, the big dud that was Copenhagen merely means EPA and states, not Congress, are in charge of the U.S. effort to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They’re not waiting around for Congress to come up with a cap-and-trade bill.

California’s leading the way. On its own, it’s going to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Oregon and Washington are planning similar actions to create the GHG emission inventories that will set emission benchmarks to measure reductions from. All three are members of the Western Climate Change Initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions. The Midwest has the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and in the East, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

And, while the Senate debates cap-and-trade legislation, EPA will be calling the shots to reduce GHG emissions and force companies to reduce their carbon footprints.

EPA’s regulatory action is already underway. On New Year’s Day, facilities with large levels of direct carbon dioxide emissions — more than 25,000 metric tons a year — have to keep records of their 2010 GHG emissions. They start filing these GHG emission release reports with EPA in 2011.

In the spring, EPA will issue final Clean Air Act permitting rules, the so-called tailoring rule, to force facilities to reduce GHG releases when they build new facilities or modify existing plants.

This is in addition to EPA adopting GHG tailpipe emission standards for new cars and trucks.

One consolation: The U.S. retained its right to adopt border tariffs on imports from China and India if those countries fail to take concerted action to reduce their GHG emission levels.

Has the action (or lack of it) in Copenhagen had any effect on your company’s green plans? Share what’s going on in your area.

Have U.S. companies dodged a bullet now that the Copenhagen climate action summit ended without any mandatory agreements? Is it time to forget about going green?

Hardly.

The green push continues unabated, though you’d hardly know that if you read the environmental blogs or if you listen to the lamentations of companies salivating at the commissions they’ll make in the emission trading game.

As Richard Gledhill, head of carbon markets at PricewaterhouseCoopers, told the Wall Street Journal, “It’s very frustrating at this stage that we haven’t got a more-comprehensive agreement.”

But for most companies, the big dud that was Copenhagen merely means EPA and states, not Congress, are in charge of the U.S. effort to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They’re not waiting around for Congress to come up with a cap-and-trade bill.

California’s leading the way. On its own, it’s going to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Oregon and Washington are planning similar actions to create the GHG emission inventories that will set emission benchmarks to measure reductions from. All three are members of the Western Climate Change Initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions. The Midwest has the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and in the East, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

And, while the Senate debates cap-and-trade legislation, EPA will be calling the shots to reduce GHG emissions and force companies to reduce their carbon footprints.

EPA’s regulatory action is already underway. On New Year’s Day, facilities with large levels of direct carbon dioxide emissions — more than 25,000 metric tons a year — have to keep records of their 2010 GHG emissions. They start filing these GHG emission release reports with EPA in 2011.

In the spring, EPA will issue final Clean Air Act permitting rules, the so-called tailoring rule, to force facilities to reduce GHG releases when they build new facilities or modify existing plants.

This is in addition to EPA adopting GHG tailpipe emission standards for new cars and trucks.

One consolation: The U.S. retained its right to adopt border tariffs on imports from China and India if those countries fail to take concerted action to reduce their GHG emission levels.

Has the action (or lack of it) in Copenhagen had any effect on your company’s green plans? Share what’s going on in your area.