Climate Policy Options

The primary target / Too expensive? / Our options / Existing climate policy / Climate policy theory / The best course of action? / Britain has done it!

We need to do something; it is a stupid risk to sit idle. However, what are our policy options to deal with this issue?

The primary target is carbon dioxide (duh). Reducing CO₂ emissions reduces our future risk, but different actions have different consequences and benefits.

Cost prohibitive?

First and foremost: Yes, taking action will be expensive. However, any report that makes claims of the economic impact of CO₂ reduction being far too high is only as accurate as the regional climate model output on which it's based: it's speculation. No one truly knows how climate will shift at regional scales, and therefore no one truly knows what the economic impact will be. But it’s important to remember that taking no action does not imply that there is no cost; in fact it is entirely possible that adaptation costs could be more expensive than prevention costs! For example, California’s water supply is steadily declining due to shrinking mountain snow packs, and so Governor Schwarzenegger has pledged $4.8 billion to build new dams to deal with this shortage. This is the adaptation cost for a single problem in a single location. Clearly adaptation costs will certainly be large but are impossible to determine with any precision.

Furthermore, some people argue that we should not take action because there will be countries that will benefit from a warmer climate, which is true (likely Canada and Russia). A simple response: If you can kill 9 innocent people so that 10 people will live more prosperously, should you do it?

Measuring the impacts on life by the metric of net monetary gain is unethical and despicable. Period.

So what are the possible courses of action?

Geoengineering:
This is a short-term “solution” that would only be used if we determine that the danger of a catastrophe is imminent or no longer preventable. Geoengineering involves the release of aerosols and sulfates into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and reduce the total amount of incoming solar radiation—in essence, to make the Earth more reflective. Reducing incoming solar radiation will help to cool the Earth and counteract the greenhouse effects of human carbon dioxide emissions. This is undesirable because it would certainly have detrimental side effects (e.g. acid rain), but these side effects may be minor compared to sudden climate shifts.
Carbon Sequestration:
Also known as “Carbon Capture and Storage,” this involves the use of technology that would capture coal power plant carbon dioxide emissions at the source (the smokestack) and then transfer it deep into the Earth at pressures that presumably would return it to a non-gas form. The technology for this is available and is starting to be implemented, but not at as large a scale as would be desired.
Carbon Tax:
This is the simplest method—if CO₂ threatens our future, then you will pay the cost of eliminating this threat by the ton of carbon dioxide you emit. Practically speaking, this means that if you fill up your gas tank, for example, you will pay a tax on that gas that represents the cost needed to “clean up” your emissions. Presumedly, these taxes would go into a national fun used to reduce CO₂ emissions (e.g. promoting clean technology). This is ultimately the fairest method, as polluters pay and non-polluters do not.
The “Carbon Dollar”—A Cap and Trade Program:
This would create a “Carbon Economy” in which countries are assigned a given amount of maximum CO₂ emissions (probably based on population), and then those countries who do need more CO₂ “credits” to comply would buy them from those who do not emit much and so have credits left over. This has an added benefit of redistributing wealth to poorer countries since they tend not to emit much carbon dioxide. Of course, many do not like the concept of wealth redistribution in the first place, which is a very large obstacle to obtaining support.
Tax breaks, subsidies, and benefits to support new technology and low-emission standards:
This approach seeks to promote cleaner industry as well as advancing technology by shifting the market to favor a low-emissions future. Effectively, it’s giving a big “push” to the business community until their new practices and new technology can sustain themselves independently on the open market. A simple example is government tax breaks on sales of hybrid vehicles so that they are affordable and the product’s consumer base grows large enough to warrant expansion of hybrid production (now at cheaper costs).

Recently, more businesses have voluntarily taken action to reduce their emissions. Furthermore, new low-emissions technology is beginning to find their place in the market. However, the free market alone cannot cut emissions as quickly as needed—the longer we wait, the greater the risk.

Existing Policies

Kyoto Protocol and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This is "the" international climate policy that is currently in force (but the U.S. is not a participating member). There is tons of documentation online at the UN Framework Convection on Climate Change. See the category called "Essential Background".
In particular, Professor Holloway recommends: Progress in the first 10 years of the UNFCCC
The official U.S. position: click here
The Economics of Climate Change: click here
Individual City and State Initiatives: Massachusetts; California
Conference of Mayors: click here

The theory behind climate policy

Roger Pielke, Jr. is an active policy researcher who has written extensively on climate. You can access many of his publications online at his website and click "publications." Dr. Pielke, Jr. also has a good blog

Susi Moser and Lisa Dilling at the National Centers for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) are also active in this field (from an academic perspective).

Click here for Susi Moser's publications.
Click here for Lisa Dilling's publications (click "Publications").

Strength in numbers

Without a doubt, a combination of these approaches is the best means of reducing our climate future risk. My current opinion is that promotion of a clean-energy marketplace is the best of the options. I am not convinced that CO₂ is the single dominant forcing (but it is certainly still important) for recent climate change; deforestation, for example, seems to play a large role as well. This has two primary implications: 1) elimination of carbon dioxide emissions may have a smaller impact than we hope; 2) a Carbon Tax/Currency system, which addresses only carbon dioxide, would have an enormous cost with no other side benefits. Thus, if it is discovered that CO₂ is less important than first talk, promotion of new technology and a shift in the market would still have other benefits, as a cleaner world would be achieved with a more efficient (and likely stronger) economy. The technology is available but is in its infancy, so it simply needs a boost to begin having a major impact on climate change prevention. A law requiring reasonable carbon emissions reduction is certainly viable as well, though, in order to gradually ween industry off of the carbon addiction.

One important note: Britain recently had a 36% growth in the national economy during a period of 15% CO₂ reduction. Clearly this can be done without too much of an economic downfall.