The disagreements were largely centered around how to achieve these outcomes, and to some extent the pace of change and the absolute targets. Democrats by and large preferred a heavier regulatory approach (i.e. “command and control”) that set specific firm-level emissions limits, prescribed permissible technologies, and set industry-wide energy and fuel efficiency standards. Republicans tended to support more market-oriented policies, with cap and trade foremost among them.

Nowadays, the arguments are no longer over the methods to achieve environmental progress, but whether we should support such progress in the first place. This situation is unprecedented. Those who believed that divided government would lead Republicans to take a more moderate and constructive role have so far been proven wrong. It is hard to imagine the situation being much worse for America’s environmental quality, which is directly linked to the quality of life for all Americans.

The modern Republican Party has absolutely no affirmative environmental agenda whatsoever, and goes so far as to contest the entire rationale for continued environmental progress. Ironically, this extremely reactionary environmental agenda is coming at a time when the ideas that Republicans once championed are now widely accepted as the best ways to structure environmental policy.

The cap and trade bill that died in the U.S. Congress in 2010 was based on market-oriented principles that were the centerpiece of George Bush Sr.’s cap and trade policy for sulfur dioxide, enacted in 1990. It permitted maximum flexibility in achieving its goals of greenhouse gas reductions over a long time horizon, giving businesses plenty of time to adjust and adapt. The bill’s intellectual foundations were so strongly rooted in conservative economics that then-presidential candidate John McCain was a huge supporter of the measure and included it in his presidential platform.

And yet today, the Republican-led House of Representatives has voted to deny the science of climate change and strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, which was granted to the agency by a 5-4 decision in the very conservative-leaning Supreme Court. The GOP-led House has proposed gutting the EPA’s budget as well. And it gets worse.

The Republicans in the House have refused to end the subsidies for oil companies (as these firms continue to rake in record profits), and while they seek to reduce food stamps, they have made it clear that they will not touch the billions in agricultural subsidies that disproportionately benefit big agribusiness. Adding insult to injury, House Republicans even reintroduced Styrofoam into the House cafeteria after Democrats had removed it during the last Congress.

I have been involved in environmental policy for almost 20 years and have never seen anything like the current Republican assault on the environment. It is truly astounding. To be clear, the Republicans leading this charge against environmental progress are in no way following conservative principles―they are doing the exact opposite. Those who profess to support conservative economics should be leading the charge against subsidies for big business and taking a firm stance in favor of the “polluter pays principle,” which states that those producers and consumers whose actions degrade the environment should pay for the damage. (You know we’re living in an upside down world when the one avowed socialist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders, has been the most vociferous opponent of oil company handouts.)

There is absolutely nothing “free market” about letting polluters trash the environment for free. In fact, this fits the definition of a market failure, not a well-functioning capitalist system. What the Republicans are currently practicing is crony capitalism of the worst kind: rewarding industry at the expense of the public interest and future generations.

It is the Republican rank and file who should be the most offended by these policies. Public opinion polls consistently show that both Democrats and Republicans care deeply about the environment, and support clean energy policies and strong environmental safeguards. Unfortunately, the once proud environmental ethic of the Republican Party has been snuffed out by a small group of radical Tea Party extremists who are deeply confused both about true conservative principles and the proper role of government in society. And once moderate Republicans who supported sensible environmental policies are nowhere to be seen. Until true conservatives retake the Republican Party we will be left doing little more than damage control, and the chances of a new comprehensive affirmative environmental agenda are slim to none.

But there is a subtext: environmentalists have often been wary of economics and dismissed economic analysis because of its supposed bias towards free markets and the commodification of natural assets. This suspicion has been aided by decades of attacks on environmental regulation by the pseudo-economists that dominate many of the corporate-sponsored rightwing think tanks, who routinely make all sorts of ludicrous claims about the power of markets to solve problems.

Serious academic economists- including Robert Stavins, Paul Krugman, Michael Hanemann, Laurence Goulder, Peter Berck, Gregory Mankiw, William Nordhaus, Martin Weitzman, and many others- have consistently advocated for significant and sustained government interventions to address a host of environmental ills, but often their voices have been drowned out by the righting hacks and their Republican enablers. 

As the rightwing is poised to gain considerable power in the coming months, it is imperative that environmentalists gear up for the fight. Embracing the core economic principles that support tough environmental regulation and policy can go a long way to winning the arguments across a wide variety of issues.

Only when environmentalists reclaim economics will we finally be able to beat back the anti-government forces that threaten humanity’s future.

In addition, would-be-president John McCain was a strong supporter of cap-and-trade legislation for greenhouse gases until he was defeated by Obama and turned against it to please the party’s rightwing base. Cap-and-trade was the conservatives’ preferred environmental policy option because allowance trading maximizes efficiency and allows for flexible solutions to reduce pollution (in contrast to “command and control”). Even pollution taxes, now vilified by the Right, come from the core conservative economic position of internalizing externalities (commonly expressed as the “polluter pays” principle). Yale economist William Nordhaus has estimated that of all the ways to raise revenue to decrease the national debt, a greenhouse gas tax is the best policy option because it does a lot to decrease pollution but little to distort economic activity.

The fact that the Republican Party has turned against true conservative policies shows the extent to which it has become dominated by corporate-interest extremists. Nowhere is this more evident than in the corporate-sponsored “conservative” think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, The Heritage Foundation, and the Cato Institute. Rarely does a week goes by without a think tank report that reads like an industry wish list; the organizations have become repositories for second-rate thinkers who parrot the corporate line under the guise of intellectual credibility.

Their objective is to move the policy goalpost rightward, and they’ve succeeded with the willing assistance of the ever-quiescent traditional media. It should have been a huge news story when McCain and his GOP colleagues vilified cap-and-trade; only one year earlier, it had been part of McCain’s presidential platform. Instead we were treated to warnings of how cap and trade might be risky in an economic downturn (even though this is the best time to initiate it, since demand for energy is low).

On issue after issue, Republicans have opposed conservative ideas simply because Obama and the Democrats support them. A perfect example: reducing subsidies for fossil fuels, which run completely contrary to the basic conservative belief that industries, especially profitable ones, should compete in the marketplace without government support. Positions like this are the antithesis of McCain’s “country first” presidential run.

So I ask: when will the true conservatives stand up and support the sensible environmental policies that have been a mainstay of conservative thought for decades? It’s time for the adults in the conservative movement to speak out. The environment can’t wait any longer.

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} Jason Scorse’s book, What Environmentalists Need to Know About Economics, will be out October 26 and is available at Amazon.

1. A lot of this argument is one of semantics and logic. Many of the population-is-the-problem folks posit the issue like this:

A. Humans are doing destructive things

B. There are lots of humans

C. There is therefore lots of destruction

so…..

D. We should dramatically reduce the number of humans 

2. I find this logic self-defeating for two reasons:

A. There isn’t much we can do at this point to get less than 9 billion people by 2050 (which is down from much higher estimates decades ago) so complaining that 9 billion is too much is like shouting at the wind

B. I am convinced that if we focus on A (above)- stopping humans from doing the most destructive behaviors- the Earth can support 9 billion people.

3. There is actually a lot of agreement on what we need to do even if we are on opposite sides of this issue:

A. Do everything we can to improve the lives of women

B. End our dependence on fossil fuels

C. Stop the over-exploitation of the forests and world’s fisheries

D. Stop subsidizing bad activities

and the list goes on.

1. “Doomsayers” is an appropriate term for many of those who think population is a huge problem; nowhere do I see more apocalyptic and defeastist rhetoric in the environmental movement. For many, it seems like the battle is lost and all we have to do now is watch humanity’s ultimate decline. And there is a pretty big dose of heartlessness too. I cringe everytime I hear people writing off entire countries and using words like “triage” for entire populations of people.
2. Where there is the greatest agreement is in the need for increased female empowerment and access to contraception since this is the greatest driver of decreasing fertility rates. Ironically, it is the great strides that have been made in these areas that have led to the decreasing fertility rates that allow Fred Pearce and others like myself to procalim population growth as not a serious problem anymore. We absolutely should continue efforts in this vein and also combat religious extremism that denies women’s freedom. On this there is close to unanimity.
3. There really aren’t that many other policies proposed by the “population is the problem” side because there are very few other options that aren’t extremely coercive. The fact is that many of the demographic trends today have a lot of inertia. There was some mention about decreasing urbanization, but this doesn’t directly address population, and the trends are precisely the opposite. Billions of people from the countryside are flocking to cities and will continue to do so.
4. With respect to the “optimum” number of people on the planet, the reason I posed this question was to show how tricky it is. Those who tried to answer it said the sustainable population is in the range of 2 billion to 3 billion. Since the population is expected to peak at around 9 billion in 2050, these people basically think it would be best if 2/3 to 3/4 of the planet’s people were wiped out. While there’s no doubt that fewer people (all else equal) means fewer impacts, there is no compelling scientific evidence that I have seen that says that 9 billion people can’t enjoy a high standard of living and maintain earth’s life support. There’s a big difference between eating a vegan diet and using wind to power your car versus eating meat three times a day with your gasoline-powered SUV, and these are the questions that seem much more relevant, rather than the absolute number of people. And since I don’t want to advocate the demise of the majority of the world’s people, I will stick with this side of the equation.

I’d like to take a few moments to respond to Robert Walker’s questions to Fred Pearce at the end of his piece:

Looking ahead, Fred, will these countries be able to feed themselves? Will they have enough safe drinking water? Will their lands be deforested or their rivers polluted? Will their maternal mortality rates and infant mortality rates remain unacceptably high? Will they be caught in a demographic poverty trap? Will they become failed states?

No one has the answers to these questions, but what I can say is that in almost all cases the absolute number of people will not be the deciding factor. For example, there is plenty of food to feed everyone in the world already, but many go hungry. There is probably five times the amount of food to feed everyone in the U.S., but we have hungry people here. Why? Because of how the food is distributed, not because we don’t grow enough. Same with drinking water; the quality of water, while affected by population, is not determined by it. And the list goes on.

In summary, while no doubt efforts to reduce fertility, especially through increasing women’s rights and decreasing child mortality, are exceptionally important (and the right thing to do), they do not impact the main drivers of environmental degradation. We could have substantially fewer people and still irreparably pollute our world. And just the same, we can (and will) have a lot more people and live sustainably. It’s how we live, not how many of us there are, that will determine our and the planet’s fate.

So for those in this camp, I have two questions:

1. If population is a key driver of environmental decline, what do you propose as solutions? 
2. What in your view is the “optimum” population of planet Earth? And why?

Please, only serious and thoughtful responses. Thanks.

UPDATE: You can now read my responses to commenters here.

            Prior to Copenhagen, the Bali Action Plan proposed several objectives; only “limiting global temperature increase to 1.5-2° Celsius” appeared in the Accord. However, its “50% reduction by 2050” and “target date for peaking global emissions” goals influenced negotiations. The failure of the UNFCCC’s dual negotiating tracks (AWG-KP and AWG-LCA) made an agreement at Copenhagen unlikely.

            At COP 15, negotiations remained stymied until 30 countries drafted the Copenhagen Accord at the 11^th hour and the US and BASIC countries negotiated its final version. The UN “took note” of the Accord; in other words, nations can formally recognize it before deciding which provisions to accept. The objections of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba, Tuvalu, and Sudan prevented the Accord’s adaptation.

            Generally, the Accord lacks functional details and does not address issues such as CDM and JI reform or noncompliance penalties.

            The Accord’s goal is to limit a global temperature increase to 2° Celsius. However, several organizations estimate current commitments will result in a 3-5° increase. Participants total 126 countries; Annex I signatories submitted 2020 targets, while developing signatories submitted Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). How to determine and account for potential developing country targets remains undecided. Assuming such targets occurred, who would obtain what proportion of credits from CDM or Green Climate Fund (GCF) funded projected and why? How would such funding interact with domestic mitigation measures? Would these targets be adjusted for differences between estimated and actual economic growth and/or emissions reduction capabilities?

            Developed countries will follow existing guidelines for measuring, reporting, and verification (MRV). Developing countries’ “reporting” remains controversial. Domestically supported NAMAs will have biennial “national communications;” internationally supported NAMAs will be subject to international MRV.

            Funding is primarily provided by the GCF. A $30 billion quick fund until 2012 and a goal of raising $100 billion annually by 2020 for developing countries were established. Accounting, coordination, and private sector investment are looming funding issues.

            The Accord notes the importance of establishing a REDD-plus mechanism and funding. Issues include defining deforestation and degradation, MRV, the relationship of REDD-plus with NAMAs, benefit distribution, land rights, forest governance, and capacity building. How much funding will come from NGOs and industry? Should REDD-plus be part of a cap and trade mechanism? Criteria (emissions, deforestation rates, or forest area cover) are needed.

            Most developed countries stated their Accord pledges depend upon a Protocol inclusive of the US and developing countries, and link funding to developing country targets and MRV. Many prefer legal symmetry (targets for all) and allowing for greater future efforts from developing countries, as a net emissions reduction would otherwise be unlikely. The US and the EU consider the Accord a major focus of negotiations.

            As for BASIC countries, India and China emphasize emissions intensity reductions, allowing for economic and potentially emissions growth. Brazil submitted NAMAs; only South Africa submitted a target. BASIC countries prefer UNFCCC negotiations to the Accord. Reasons include economic growth and pressure to accept greater future reductions if targets were accepted now. However, they have declared support for a global, legally binding agreement by 2011.

            130 develop
ing countries, including BASIC, island, African, and Least Developed Countries, form the Group of 77, or G77. Most dislike a successor Protocol which would limit emissions and potentially, economic growth. Many view funding as the responsibility of developed nations and/or climate reparations. Some view the Accord’s financial commitments as only a beginning; previous G77 demands have ranged from $200 to $500 billion annually. Poor and vulnerable countries view adaptation as a major issue, and advocate a 1.5° Celsius limit and US and BASIC country targets.

            UNFCCC negotiations are intensifying before COP 16. Meetings of major international organizations (MEF, G20, ICAO, BASIC countries) will also shape negotiations.

            UNFCCC rules require all 192 member nations to agree to any treaty; reforming these rules also requires unanimous assent and is unlikely. Therefore, integrating the Accord and UNFCCC negotiating tracks is crucial. Article 7.2(c) of the UNFCCC allows it to facilitate measures to address climate change. Accordingly, the GCF Advisory Group was formed, but until the Accord is adopted and the GCF made an operational COP mechanism, GCF funds would need to be administrated outside of the UNFCCC. Yvo de Boer’s resignation has created additional uncertainty for negotiations.

            An agreement is unlikely without domestic US legislation. While the House passed legislation last summer, the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman Senate bill is unlikely to pass before COP 16 due to the weak economy, Wall Street scandals, Republican and industry opposition, upcoming midterm elections, Graham’s withdrawal, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

            The Accord itself may be an alternative to an UNFCCC Protocol. Alternatively, the G20 or MEF may broker an agreement, though smaller developing countries should be included to increase the legitimacy of such discussions. The G20 and MEF may also coordinate with UNFCCC negotiations or build from them if an UNFCCC agreement is not reached.

            National and regional actions may include energy efficiency measures, funding for green technology, or regulation. Another option is setting a carbon tariff equal to the cost of domestic carbon permits, though this would create disputes with carbon-intensive importers and damage import-reliant and export-oriented sectors. Carbon markets face initial learning curve inefficiencies. Regional markets may have limited interactions, and only a global market could effectively incorporate international aviation and marine emissions. The EU ETS and RGGI carbon markets will continue; Tokyo, South Korea, New Zealand, and Canada plan on implementing their own. However, WCI implementation is faltering, while Australia has shelved its plans until 2013.

            Such efforts will lack the coordination and possibly the effectiveness of a Protocol. Nevertheless, they are currently the only viable alternatives and must be enough to address climate change.

David Siao is a recent graduate of the Monterey Institute of International Policies with a MA in International Environmental Policy. His interests include renewable energy, energy policy & infrastructure, and the Asia region. He can be contacted at dsiao@miis.edu.

Whether the political battles of the past year, the persistently weak economy, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have drained Obama to the point that he doesn’t have it in him to rise to the occasion, I don’t know. But he has let down the environmental community, his supporters, and ultimately the country; it is simply insane that in 2010 we still subsidize fossil fuels and fund the Saudi and Iranian mullahs with our thirst for cheap gasoline. Adding insult to injury, China is overtaking us in the production of renewable energy.

The primary obstacle in the way of climate change legislation is the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. Why the Administration doesn’t put good legislation up for a vote and let the GOP block it, making clear to the American people that they at least tried, is beyond me. With a Republican Party united in opposition, there’s no way that serious energy policy can pass.

Not only is the GOP opposed to passing legislation that only months ago was co-sponsored by one of its more conservative members, Lindsey Graham; in fact, Republicans are attempting to move backwards:

1. Senator Murkowski of Alaska tried to pass a measure that would’ve prevented the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases; the measure fell short by only four votes, with a few “centrist” Democrats voting with the Republicans.

2. The GOP continues to block efforts to lift the liability cap on BP, which currently stands at a paltry $75 million (if ever there was evidence that Republicans are shills for the oil industry, this is it).

3. Despite the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, Republican governors and members of Congress continue to call for an increase in offshore drilling.

A recent op-ed by Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee perfectly encapsulates the intellectual bankruptcy of the GOP. In his WSJ piece, “An Energy Strategy for Grown-Ups”, Alexander makes no mention of climate change and displays no understanding of the most basic aspects of energy policy. He argues that wind power won’t help reduce our dependence on foreign oil because oil supplies the transportation sector, while also stating that we need to begin electrifying the transportation sector (which could be done with wind power). He says that utilities need an economic incentive to reduce CO2, which is exactly what the bills he opposes attempt to provide; but he offers no ideas along these lines, and without government intervention utilities will never reduce CO2 emissions on their own. Adding to the circus-like atmosphere of the GOP’s attempts at energy policy, Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts defended his vote to strip the EPA of its ability to regulate CO2 because the EPA is a “non-governmental” entity; this from a sitting U.S. senator!

The bottom line is that the GOP is wholly unserious about energy policy. Republicans seek to do everything they can to maintain record energy industry profits (including lax safety regulations in the coal, oil, and gas sectors), and are happy with an energy trade balance that sends hundreds of billions a year to nations with interests contrary to ours (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela).

This kowtowing to corporate interests and the anti-science crowd would be appalling in the worst banana republic or authoritarian regime; coming from the leader of the free world, it’s vastly more disturbing. Without U.S. progress on climate policy, the chances for a post-Kyoto deal are vastly diminished.

When we look back decades from now at the interests that blocked progress on the pressing environmental goals of the 21st century, we will realize that the GOP had literally become enemies of the Earth.

Jason Scorse

The problem is that more often than not these writers get the facts wrong.

It’s almost as if the knee-jerk aversion to economics that exists among many environmentalists prevents them from acknowledging the truth: that mainstream economics is very much on their side. While criticizing economics may help them polish their leftist credentials and demonstrate the contrarian-independent thinking that grabs headlines, it ultimately leads to sloppy thinking.

Case in point are recent pieces by David Roberts of Grist and Bill McKibben in The New Republic (for the record: I respect both authors and they do good work).

McKibben describes how the Waxman-Markey climate change bill is full of loopholes for special interests (which it is), and uses this as evidence against the basic economic rationale for a cap and trade bill. He then praises the new CLEAR bill sponsored by Senators Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins for its fairness, lack of loopholes, and simplicity. He suggests that it represents a significant departure from traditional economics—the subtitle of his piece is “Forget Cap and Trade”—when in fact the bill is nothing but a cap and trade bill with full auctions and consumer rebates.

The CLEAR bill represents a policy that mainstream environmental economists—from Robert Stavins (Harvard) to Michael Hanemann (UC-Berkeley)—have advocated in one form or another for well over a decade; it is what I have taught and advocated in graduate school every semester for the past seven years.

CLEAR is superior to the Waxman-Markey bill not because it deviates from the prescriptions of classical environmental economics, but because it adheres to them so closely.

Now for the relatively recent David Roberts piece, “Economics as Pathology”, in Grist (one of dozens of pieces over the years where Roberts lambasts mainstream economics). Roberts slams “neoliberal” economics for its insistence on rationality as the guiding principle for human activity; since people don’t act rationally all of the time, Roberts believes this insistence has hampered the search for solutions to climate change.

Roberts, for all of his excellent contributions to the climate change debate, insists on a myopic and caricaturized version of economics that simply doesn’t exist. Even the leaders of the behavioral economics revolution that he admires so much are all mainstream economists in the world’s leading institutions—e.g. Sendil Mullinathan of MIT, Richard Thaler at the University of Chicago, and Matthew Rabin at UC-Berkeley.

In fact, the leading proponents of decisive action on climate change are as mainstream as they come: William Norhaus (Yale), Paul Krugman (Princeton), Martin Weitzman (Harvard), and even Gregory Mankiw (Harvard, former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Bush). All are extremely prestigious, and all adhere to a largely classical (i.e. neoliberal) economic view. Put them together in a room, and I’m sure they would ultimately agree that we need a range of policies to complement carbon pricing; they recognize that changing both consumer and producer behavior on such a massive scale will require more than just price signals. They might not agree completely on all of the prescriptions but neither do environmentalists.

Economists of all stripes have argued for decades for the proper pricing of pollution, for severely reducing or eliminating natural resources subsidies for agriculture, forestry, energy, water, and fisheries, and for making property rights simpler and more transparent.

So here’s the bottom line: when they discuss policy solutions to environmental problems, Roberts and McKibben (and virtually every other environmentalist) are three out of four times describing concepts that can be traced to mainstream environmental economists, sometimes from work done decades ago.

Of course economists don’t agree on everything, and there is always some economist hack at one of the rightwing “think tanks” who will put forth an outlandish idea—but by and large the most well-respected mainstream economists are squarely on the side of environmentalists.

It would be nice if more environmentalists would simply acknowledge this, and we could all work together to help the public understand the strong synergy between economic and environmental interests. The idea that classical economics is somehow opposed to environmental legi
slation, or not sophisticated enough to grasp the realities of human behavior, is false. Worse, it creates a false dichotomy that only helps fuel the skeptics and confuse an already chronically misinformed citizenry.

P.S. In a subsequent piece I will explain why these issues are so critical for framing the legislative battles in the months and years ahead.

On Monday, the first day of Copenhagen, the EPA announced that it has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, which is a none-too-thinly-veiled warning to Congress that if it doesn’t act the EPA may. Since EPA’s regulatory powers under the Clean Air Act are quite extensive, many businesses view the cap-and-trade legislation, for which they can wield tremendous influence, as a lesser of evils. The game of chicken that is now underway between the EPA and Congress as to which body will ultimately set the terms of greenhouse gas regulation is a fascinating case study in political economy and gamesmanship.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Congress will not want to cede the authority to the EPA and that the proposed cap-and-trade legislation will pass in some form (even if severely weakened) in 2010. While many in the environmental community rightly view this is a potential historic victory in the making (relative to the last eight years of obstruction under the Bush Administration), a weak cap-and-trade bill may actually do more harm than good.

This is because the investments that need to be made in order to make the major reductions in emissions required after 2020 are extensive, and will likely not be spurred by the low price of carbon (and other greenhouse gases) that is predicted should cap-and-trade pass. If the price of carbon were allowed to rise significantly as the cap tightened, perhaps reaching $75-100 per ton, this might be sufficient to unleash the market forces necessary for the push towards 80 percent reductions by 2050. However, it is highly unlikely that politicians would allow the price to get even close to this amount; all types of escape clauses are already built in or are being proposed for the current legislation.

It is not difficult to envision a scenario under which cap-and-trade passes and industry does what is necessary to reduce emissions in the range of 15 percent by 2020 by exploiting all of the “low hanging fruit” (e.g. energy efficiency and switching from coal to natural gas), but does not invest in the major infrastructure projects and economy-wide restructuring that is needed to take the big steps beyond that will get us to 40 percent, 50 percent, and ultimately our 80 percent reduction targets.

With another decade of lost, and politicians unwilling to let the price of carbon rise significantly, the U.S. could get stuck with very hard choices as to how, if at all, to proceed. Which brings us the issue as to whether letting the EPA take the lead now would ultimately lead to a better outcome.

The EPA has the power to enforce strict renewable energy requirements, absolute caps on emissions at individual facilities, and vehicle fuel economy standards (including electric vehicle mandates). In essence, the EPA could, if it wanted to, begin the paradigm shifting measures required to truly decarbonize the economy.

The more I learn about the imperfections in the current cap-and-trade legislation, and the potential for abuse in the carbon offset markets, coupled with the impossibility of passing a significant greenhouse gas tax, the more I believe that the EPA may be better suited to the task ahead.

I now find myself in the odd position of hoping that the dysfunction Senate calls the EPA’s bluff and refuses to pass a bill, and that the EPA responds with the type of measures I’ve outlined above. Or perhaps best case scenario, the Senate passes a bill and the EPA decides to complement it with these measures (some of which, to be fair, are already being considered in the proposed cap-and-trade legislation).

Here’s hoping the EPA uses its power and comes to the rescue.

P.S. It now appears that the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling giving the EPA the regulatory authority to regulate greenhouse gases may turn out to be the biggest environmental victory in the history of humankind.

*Special thanks to my colleague Jim Williams, Associate Professor at the Monterey Institute, who inspired this post.