Environmentalism
meets the market
Nov 8, 2005 - Record, Northern New Jersey
Author(s): William Tucker
SOMETIMES it seems we never reach any middle ground on environmental
issues. Conservatives say we have to dig for more energy.
Environmentalists claim conservation and solar can do the job. Energy
companies argue we need liquid natural gas terminals. Environmentalists
say they're too dangerous. Environmentalists worry about global warming.
Conservatives say it's a false alarm.
There is one thing that environmentalists and their critics have
finally been able to agree upon, however: Markets are by far the best
tool for tackling pollution.
The system that has caught on is "cap-and-trade." The idea received
another big boost this year when New Jersey and eight other Eastern
states agreed to set up a cap-and-trade "market" for reducing their
carbon dioxide emissions to deal with global warming. These days there
are few pollution issues that aren't being looked at through
cap-and-trade.
It wasn't always so. In the old days, the Environmental Protection
Agency would set standards on an emission - particulate matter in coal,
for example - and then go around the country trying to enforce its
rules. Delays were endless. Companies would dispute the standards. They
would argue somebody else was polluting worse than they were. They would
complain that compliance would drive them out of business.
The EPA evolved a legal lexicon to try to carry out its will. "Best
available technology" meant a company had to buy the priciest thing on
the market. "Best practical technology" attempted to introduce an
element of cost. "New source performance standards" were the worst
stumbling block. If companies built anything new, it had to be
top-of-the-line, no matter how expensive. So they'd stick with their
old, dirty plants.
As a result, very little progress was made. Believe it or not, almost
60 percent of the coal burned in this country is still untreated for
pollution. And that's before you consider carbon dioxide, which isn't
even a "pollutant" - meaning a "resource out of place" - but the natural
exhaust product of combustion. Carbon dioxide, of course, is believed to
be causing global warming.
For years - decades - market-oriented conservatives argued there was
a better way. In a 1977 Harper's article, George Schultz, who became
secretary of state under Ronald Reagan, argued that the EPA ought to
consider two economic strategies.
First, it might tax pollution. This would give companies a financial
incentive to clean up, since it would be cheaper to clean up rather than
pay the tax.
Second and more intriguing, the government could sell the rights to
pollute. Place an imaginary bubble over a city, Schultz said. The
government could pick a tolerable level of emissions and then sell
rights to pollute for that amount. Companies would buy and sell among
themselves to decide who got to pollute and who had to clean up. By
pursuing economies, polluters would discover among themselves the
cheapest way to clean up. Now there would be a reward for developing new
technology. Companies could go beyond some arbitrary requirement and
sell their leftover rights to someone else.
Environmentalists were horrified. A right to pollute! Buying and
selling? This smacked of crass commercialism, whereas environmentalism
was about nature and purity.
Gradually, however, they came around.
The turning point came with the Clean Air Act of 1990, when a
Democratic Congress and Republican President Bush compromised on a
"cap-and-trade" system for reducing sulfur dioxide, which causes acid
rain.
At the time, the EPA was predicting the cleanup would cost $10
billion a year and take 20 years to put into effect. Instead, the system
worked beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Sulfur emissions have been cut in
half since 1990 at a cost of only $1 billion per year.
President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore picked up on
cap-and-trade and tried to introduce it to the Kyoto Protocols.
Unfortunately, the rest of the world wouldn't agree - although Europe
has set up its own "bubble" and is trading permits to meet its Kyoto
requirements. President Bush has since continued the effort.
As a result, American environmental groups have become the most
enthusiastic supporters of market-based systems. "A cap-and-trade policy
for carbon, grounded in the traditional market principles of the
American economy, represents a realistic achievable first step on global
warming," says Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense.
Environmentalists enthusiastically supported the McCain- Lieberman bill
when it introduced a national cap-and-trade system for America's carbon
emissions - although the bill unfortunately failed in the Senate.
Still, the news isn't always bad. Sometimes when we put our heads
together, we can accomplish great things.
* * *
William Tucker is an associate at the American Enterprise Institute.
His column appears Tuesdays. Contact him at
billtucker@nyc.rr.com. Send
comments about this column to
opedpage@gmail.com.
© Copyright 2005 NetContent, Inc. Duplication and
distribution restricted.
Visit http://www.powermarketers.com/index.shtml
for excellent coverage on your energy news front.
|