For many years, I have struggled with the pressing question: how do we enact change? How do I, as an individual, assist in correcting the global climate change problem that we face? Although I hate to say it, I think policy is the most effective avenue to see the change that we want. The initiative is there with a small minority of the American population, but we need everyone on board for a problem as stark as global climate change. The vast majority of people either doesn’t understand enough or doesn’t care about climate change; because of these two factors, it is vital that we have strong policy that demands change from our country.
Good policy must encompass the three E’s: effectiveness, economic viability, and equaling/distributional effects (Leggett 2). Therefore, a number of factors must be taken into account when discerning the best way to go about tackling climate change on a national scale. There are currently many approaches to mitigating climate change. Two options for carbon reduction are widely known: reductions at point of emission or end use. Many people are proponents of one or the other, depending upon with which industry they align. My question is: why don’t we use both? Attacking emissions from both ends allows carbon reductions to come from across the board, without targeting one industry or set of businesses. If one industry is singled out and punished for either point of emission or end use, there will be powerful interests vested in combating these policy movements. For example, do not target merely the transportation industry while leaving the industrial sector untouched.
The nature of climate change necessitates integrated and multi-faceted policy approaches: the aforementioned hybrid model would be particularly helpful. We cannot expect one tactic or solution to solve all of the potential hazards associated with climate change. The problem itself is not simple; therefore, we cannot afford to go about addressing climate change in a simple manner. I propose that a holistic/multi-pronged approach as described below would lead us towards a greener future:
First, there needs to be a strict and massive transition towards the redistribution of subsidies. For example, corn is heavily subsidized; farmers are actually paid to let their fields lie fallow. Because corn is so inexpensive, the markets are skewed towards finding a use for corn in essentially everything. Allowing diversification within U.S. agriculture would promote alternatives to both fuel and U.S. exports to be more
Second, a personal carbon tax would be an interesting experimental implementation to consider that would have an equalizing distributional effect in decreasing consumer impact. France is instituting a carbon tax on personal and business use of coal, gas, and oil to reduce French energy consumption; the U.S. should learn from their model and attempt a similar project to spread awareness among consumers.
Third, provide economic incentive within industries to promote making green practices the norm. Rewarding innovation financially within industries will encourage change through promoting competition. Then mandatory environmental standards would not be necessary, hence avoiding industrial backlash.
Although not comprehensive, I believe that taking these initial steps in the marathon of our fight against climate change will get us on the correct path towards a brighter future.
