Climate Kick Boxing: Make the First Strike

By Sam Pollan, ‘14

Environmental policy in the United States is in a precarious position. While urgent action is recognized as necessary, it has not yet been institutionalized. One of the main conflicts in policy making is the epic battle between the economy and the environment. A federal policy that is expensive, even if it is likely to produce the highest reduction in emissions, will never be implemented as a US policy. The current contenders for possible policies are market based solutions. Robert Stavins, in his article “A Golden Opportunity to Please Conservatives and Liberals Alike,” mentions four policies with almost identical yields in reductions. These

Projected emission reductions from recently proposed legislation in the US Congress

policies range from absolute regulation, the most costly, to cap-and-trade systems, which are up to 90 percent cheaper. Market based approaches (i.e. cap-and-trade) provide economic incentives to efficiently reduce emissions. The chart, designed by the World Resources Institute, shows the potential for the effectiveness of the proposed cap-and-trade systems in the US.

The cap-and-trade method of limiting emissions, designed to be flexible, will initially require relatively small reductions and ultimately entail steep cuts in emissions in order to meet internationally agreed upon standards of GHG levels in the atmosphere. The Resources for the Future think tank (RFF) believes that if the US implements effective policy soon, many other nations will follow suit. This, in turn, will prompt further climate change mitigation efforts by the US.  While this is a pleasant theory, history tells a different story. Take, for example, the Kyoto Protocol where the US backed out and several other nations took the initiative to cut emissions regardless of US involvement. Other nations have applied GHG reducing policies with a fair amount of success and it is time for the US to take a hint.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, a reactionary position is less than effective. In order to seriously consider maintaining safe levels of GHG emissions, the efforts must be made at the source of the problems. As one of the world’s largest emitters of GHGs, the US needs to initiate impressive domestic policies regardless of international cooperation. That being said, the international community must continue to do their part as well. Waiting for one country or another only digs us into a deeper hole and only requires more drastic reductions down the road.

The US must decide on an effective policy soon. Cap-and-trade markets have worked overseas and many economists predict that, if correctly implemented, cap-and-trade systems can be cost effective and provide incentives for substantial achievements in technological innovations. Mitigating climate change is a long and arduous fight, but it is vital to develop a practical strategy to overcome this environmental war.

Works Cited

Kopp and Pizer, eds., 2007. “Overview,” in Assessing U.S. Climate Policy Options, Resources for the Future, Washington DC, pp. 6-21.

Luers, A., M. Mastrandrea, K. Hayhoe and P. Frumhoff. 2007. How to Avoid Dangerous Climate Change, A Target for US Emissions Reductions. Union of Concerned Scientists.

Stavins, 2011. “A Golden Opportunity to Please Conservatives and Liberals Alike.”http://stavins.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/a-golden-opportunity-to-please-conservatives-and-liberals-alike/