Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Bernard Finel
Senior Fellow, American Security Project

Bernard Finel

Dr. Bernard I. Finel is a Senior Fellow at the American Security Project where he directs research on counter-terrorism, defense policy and climate change. ALL POSTS

A sub-optimal course of action

Q: Given the gridlock in Congress over the climate bill, is the Obama administration's fallback strategy to let EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions a good idea?

Like many questions regarding climate change, the answer has both a political and a substantive component. But in this case, neither provides an obvious response.

In terms of substance, EPA regulations may in fact begin to push the United States into a lower-carbon regime. This seems like a good outcome, but it also means that such regulations are almost certain to be overturned the moment a Republican is inaugurated. As a consequence, American firms would be forced to deal with a great deal of uncertainty about the future. The result would likely be short-term mitigation efforts, but little long-term investment. This is not conducive to the kind of economic transformation we need to reshape our energy consumption patterns into a less damaging configuration.

In terms of politics, vigorous EPA regulation would, of course, trigger a vicious and brutal political response. It will be denounced by conservatives, who will proceed to blame and all economic problems in the future on the new regulations. So, in the short-run, it would complicate the politics of dealing with climate change. But interestingly, over time as it became clear that using less carbon was not disastrous to the economy, and that instead it provided at least some short-term opportunities for new investment in locally-produced renewable energy and other initiatives, this would serve to defang criticism of climate action.

The reality is that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and producing more energy from "green" sources is a long-term win-win. But getting there is going to be difficult, and using regulatory action, while probably a net plus is certainly a sub-optimal course of action.

By Bernard Finel  |  February 23, 2010; 3:26 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: A prescription for an economic disaster | Next: EPA strategy would be enviornmentally unreliable


Please report offensive comments below.

The EPA should be defunded and dismantled. It is wasting money trying to enforce regulations on GHG's. As Mr. Finel said..."such regulations are almost certain to be overturned the moment a Republican is inaugurated."

I believe the THEORY of global warming is based on junk science. Every day it seems like another hole is poked in the famous Nobel Prize winning IPCC report, and let’s not forget about those famous e-mails that revealed how climate scientists have become climate advocates.

I personally am looking forward to the day when Obama and his Commie friends leave office. This soon to be one-term president will go down in history as the idiot who almost destroyed business and health care in America. But hey… “That’s what elections are for.”

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | February 27, 2010 8:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company