Solutions to the problem of climate change, however unlikely they are to come about, are pretty straightforward. Sorry, free-marketeers, but government intervention is necessary (and with that I include world government, or at least a treaty mechanism like Kyoto). But take heart -- we can use market-based government intervention! (More on this in a moment.)

Why the need for regulation? Simply put, individuals have an incentive to freeload off of the goodwill of other individuals who attempt to pay for some of the future costs of climate change. For example, if Factory A spends a million dollars improving their electrical efficiency while Factory B does nothing, both companies benefit from the reduction in greenhouse gases, but Factory A (since they spent a big pile of capital upgrading) is paying for it all. Unless the government steps in to force all companies and individuals to share those costs, it's in everyone's best interest to wait for someone else to do something about the problem.

Policymakers' first goal should be to heavily tax energy and use the proceeds to fund research and development into renewable energy. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, among others, has been proposing a $1 a gallon gasoline tax. Since transportation only contributes about 15% of our greenhouse gases, Friedman's proposal is not broad enough. We need to broadly tax all non-renewable energy use, such as oil (including automotive gasoline), coal, and natural gas. To keep the tax from being too regressive, a provision could be included that shifted income tax brackets up a bit.

Second, we need a cap-and-trade system for carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions (these three are the major greenhouse gases). This would allow us to reduce emissions in an efficient manner. I would suggest a cap that is slowly ratcheted down and reevaluated every few years (preferably the off-years of the U.S. election cycle). The Kyoto Protocol is based on a cap-and-trade scheme. And though the United States has (notably) not joined 164 other nations in adopting it, some non-governmental groups have introduced sophisticated voluntary trading mechanisms.

Sidebar #3: Cap-and-trade systems are a way of using market mechanisms to regulate pollution. They work by setting a maximum level of pollution that is tolerable (the "cap"), and then having polluters pay for shares the emissions: they are paying for the privilege to pollute. Pollution becomes a limited resource, and for industries to pollute, they have to buy pollution unit credits from other industries, which then have excess money to find alternative production means without polluting. Example: Assume two factories each pollute 50 tons of carbon dioxide into the air every year (100 tons per year total). The government wants to limit total pollution to only 50 tons per year. They cap pollution at 50 tons, then distribute credits to the two factories. The companies now will negotiate their own deal about how to get total pollution down to 50 tons per year. Perhaps Factory A has already been investing in pollution control mechanisms, and can handle a reduction in emissions better. In this case, Factory A can sell its pollution credits to Factory B for a substantial sum, allowing Factory B to pollute (but pay a major premium) and giving Factory A a pile of extra cash to put into more efficient production mechanisms. The advantage to a cap-and-trade system is that it is very efficient in distributing the economic impact of pollution constraints between various actors.

Third, we need to make the United States a world leader in combating global climate change, not a world pariah. As growing economies begin to resemble our own, we should make ours a model of efficiency and work with other countries to spread green policies. Beyond taxes and caps, we should attempt to create stronger worldwide Kyoto-esque treaties that will ensure that the economic impacts of reducing pollution will be equitably distributed amongst all countries.

Climate scientists' research suggests that the recent small run-up in global temperatures is the result of emissions that have been slowly building for decades. The lag time on global warming is extremely long. As our emissions increase exponentially, the lag time will drop. We need to drastically reduce our emissions now so that we can buy ourselves time to formulate new solutions and technologies in the area of renewable energy.

*

And while we're waiting for all this to happen? Let's be real, it could be a while before we even ratify Kyoto. Hence, I propose an ethic of consumption that eschews size and values efficiency and sustainability. It's actually very simple. For each consumption decision, one should estimate whether the global population could survive if everyone made that decision. Obviously it's a bit of a rough estimate, but common sense makes a few things obvious.

Could the world survive if everyone in the world ate organic food? Probably (with some phase-in time). And if so, it would be a boon for the environment.

Could everyone in the world own a car? No. In their present state, cars are not sustainable goods. Clearly the vast majority of Americans rely on cars, and the demand for them is inelastic. People love their cars. People love driving. People love the convenience of cars. To live without a car is to make an unusual set of lifestyle changes. For people (like myself) who live in the Northeast, riding one's bike around in the winter is not a viable option. Or is it? Again, it comes down to lifestyle choices. I live in Brooklyn, NY. A carfree life is easy here, all year round. Yet I grew up in Amherst, MA. Almost everyone in Amherst owns a car. If more people in Amherst made the decision to live near their workplace and/or the central commercial district, we could reduce the number of cars on the road.

Unfortunately, I think most people are unwilling to make that choice. The growth of the exurbs and McMansions attests to people's preferences. But for all you car owners out there, I beg that you minimize your car use. Use it sparingly in the spring, summer, and fall when biking is a comfortable option. Walk more.

Our living spaces are also unsustainable. The energy needed to heat, cool, and electrify a typical American single-family dwelling is simply too high. Second homes only add to the wastefulness. Apartment-dwellers tend to have better (less) energy usage, but all residences, big and small, would be served by maximizing the purchase of efficient appliances and focusing on small-scale conservation tactics.

*

This is truly one of the most important issues of our time. While no hurricane at this point can be said to be "caused" by global warming, there is evidence that rising sea temperatures caused by global warming has increased the intensity and number of the most devastating (category 4 and 5) hurricanes. Our reliance on the fossil fuels from the Middle East has had massive geo-political consequences, and financed many a terrorist. Though most people remain blissfully ignorant or unconcerned about climate change, it is a problem that we need to confront now, and confronting it may even mean making (that most un-American thing) a consumptive sacrifice.

I'm sure you've been hearing this advice since Earth Day in elementary school, and I can't imagine that my piece here is going to convince anyone to selflessly ditch their cars or move out of the suburbs. Hence, I really do believe that we need government intervention to force us to look at the externalities of our energy use. I beg you: Stop us before we pollute again.

« Previous Next »