Voluntary greenhouse gas abatement is not a long term solution to climate change
May 14, 2007
Gloria Helfand is an Associate Professor of Environmental Economics at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment. Her research focuses on pollution policy and the comparison of market-based and regulatory methods.
With a steadily increasing number of organizations embracing voluntary actions to reduce global warming, do we need federal government regulations?
Yes, and many of these organizations will agree that federal regulations are desirable.
Every time each of us emits greenhouse gases, we are changing our climate and the climate of everyone else in the world. Each one of us individually has a small effect, but together we have a large and growing effect. Collective problems require collective solutions. Collective solutions arise from collective action, which is something government regulation is particularly effective at coordinating.
Voluntary abatement is a very valuable initial step in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, but it cannot be the final step. We expect individuals and businesses to undertake voluntary abatement, such as energy efficiency investments, when those investments reduce costs or increase profits. Some of those opportunities exist today. Additionally, individuals and businesses that invest in abatement activities gain valuable experiences. These “first movers” may discover technologies or practices that they can later sell profitably to others who want to reduce their emissions.
If voluntary measures were sufficient to solve the problem, we would not have a climate change problem, because our voluntary actions would be solving it. The climate problem is growing, though, because most abatement activities will impose higher costs on businesses and the public in general. In a competitive business environment, and when consumer budgets are strained, we cannot expect people to increase costs on themselves unilaterally. Nevertheless, if we all act together, such as through government requirements, we can protect ourselves and the rest of the planet from the worst effects of climate change.
Regulation is already starting. A number of individual states, including California and many in New England, are already regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that greenhouse gases are a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate them. Many businesses would prefer to face one national greenhouse gas policy rather than a large number of differing state policies, to reduce the complexity of meeting different standards in different places.
A national policy should set clear targets for emissions reductions, but it should give individuals and businesses flexibility in how to achieve those targets. Clear targets will both give people incentives to abate as well as to find new, cheaper ways to reduce greenhouse gases and reduce the costs that reduction will bring. While abating greenhouse gas emissions will not be free, the benefits in terms of reduced climate impacts will make cost-effective abatement worthwhile.
