Soon, we will likely see the worst case scenario come to pass in the name of “preventing climate change”, and that is to have a command-driven regulatory agency dish out quotas and make peripheral tweaks to existing regulations in order to look like they’re doing something productive. It is unlikely that climate legislation will pass the Senate in this Congress or the next…and that is a tragedy.
I place the blame squarely on Republicans; centrist and conservative alike. I tend to think that Democrats gave a lot on this issue…and I grant them that even though their preference for centralized solutions to environmental problems are oftentimes wrong on the merits.
To be sure, cap and trade was not my most preferred solution, which is a carbon tax…which was never even close to the table due to the Republicans’ successful campaign against the word “tax”. A carbon consumption tax would have been the most efficient, least intrusive way in which to deal with whatever specter of environmental degradation exists (even if it’s not climate change, per se, and just happens to be smog). But, cap and trade was a very large step in the direction of markets anyway — and the ACES bill passed the house! I have previously voiced my concern about the (lack of) possible impact that the ACES bill will have, but my problem was not with the premise.
Let’s quickly review two simple definitions of how governments interact with markets:
- Policies that get the government involved in differentiating, selecting, and amplifying business plans.
- Policies that shape the fitness environment, while leaving business plan differentiation to entrepreneurs, and selection and amplification to market mechanisms.
Now, hold constant that this government will act in a way consistent with the fact that they believe that climate change is a serious issue. The most optimal solution is for the government to put a price on carbon (shape the fitness environment) and let businesses and individuals figure out how they will adapt to the new evolutionary landscape. Wait…that’s exactly what ACES did. Sure, there were a giveaways, and it questionable whether the bill would “do anything” to prevent global warming — but those are mostly semantics. The point is, it is consistent with my preferred role for the government.
However, since pricing carbon is not in the cards for this or the next Congress…and given that our government is looking to act against climate change…and given that there are a myriad of very, very inefficient regulations already on the books that fit into the first category of government action, we are all but destined for sub-optimal policy (like regulation by the EPA).
And I blame you, Republicans.

4 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ July 28th, 2010 at 8:57 am
mmj
i think you’re way off the mark here. a carbon tax will not pass muster because the electorate will not accept it. do you seriously believe americans would accept european levels of gas prices (i.e. $8+ per gallon)? that would not have happened even prior to a recession.
Wednesday ~ July 28th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Apex
And what kinds of worst case scenario outcomes do you imagine the EPA will direct us towards if they are given the power to regulate Carbon Emissions?
A carbon tax is going to put a huge burden on the economy, take money out of everyone’s pocket, result in increasing utility costs which will result in more government welfare to help the poor cover these increasing costs and result in allocating some or all of the new money coming from the tax to pay for more non sense environmental policies and programs locking us into spending even more money on useless government ideas.
I have a hard time seeing an EPA regulation resulting in worse outcomes than that.
Wednesday ~ July 28th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Lord
Republicans did their part by destroying the economy. Not the most efficient method, but it was quite effective.
Wednesday ~ July 28th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
blokeinfrance
Now, hold constant that this government will act in a way consistent with the fact that they believe that climate change is a serious issue.
or not, maybe trillions of tax dollars might be better spent on mitigation not minimisation