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

Richard L. Revesz

Richard L. Revesz

Richard L. Revesz, dean of NYU's School of Law, is an expert on environmental regulation and policy and co-founder of the Institute for Policy Integrity. ALL POSTS

America won't go to Copenhagen empty handed

While the slow-down going into Copenhagen isn't good news, it will represent a major set-back only if there is further backsliding. So long as we continue making progress towards emissions limits in the United States while working toward locking in serious commitments overseas, a completed deal in 2010 is still possible.

Obama Administration regulators have moved forward with a climate agenda at a good clip--taking the issue from zero to sixty to make up for the lost time of the past eight years of stalling. So while the cap-and-trade bill that passed in the House of Representatives is currently stalled in the Senate, it is not true that American negotiators are going to Copenhagen empty handed.

First, the Environmental Protection Agency is close to finalizing the so-called endangerment finding -- declaring greenhouse gases a health hazard. This move will put the nation's major emitters on notice that regulations will soon be coming to reduce their climate impacts.

Also, in an under-the-radar but crucial step, federal agencies have begun the process to put a uniform price on what society pays when carbon dioxide is emitted: somewhere around $20 per ton. Every regulation with a climate impact will have to take this cost into account. This step has gone largely unnoticed but will have wide-ranging impact on environmental rules -- when the hidden price of carbon is counted, the benefits of regulating often swamp the costs.

The Obama Administration could, if it chose, go one step further by promulgating its own version of a cap-and-trade using provisions of the Clean Air Act. Though not as attractive an option as congressional action, a regulatory emissions cap could serve as an effective interim step while we wait for comprehensive legislation.

The previous administration refused to deal with climate change as our nation, and the world, waited for action. Now, President Obama has put climate change high on his agenda and has taken several significant steps forward. But this is not a fight he can win alone. Congressional leaders, U.S. businesses, the American public, and other countries will all need to decide that "delay is no longer an option." The recent joint statement with China's President Hu is a good step in the right direction.

There are major hidden costs to carbon-heavy fuels, and every year without a serious global effort to rein in emissions racks up a larger tab. Whether the Copenhagen talks are a major breakthrough or a "stepping stone", we cannot lose much more momentum if we want to spare the planet from the worst effects of global warming.

By Richard L. Revesz  |  November 18, 2009; 1:31 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg     Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Ball is in our court | Next: Yesterday is not the issue; tomorrow is.

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



"...uniform price on what society pays when carbon dioxide is emitted: somewhere around $20 per ton." Who is going to pay these costs? It won't be the businesses that generate the carbon, it will be you and me. That won't do anything but take my money and make me angry at the AGW crowd.

"The Obama Administration could, if it chose, go one step further by promulgating its own version of a cap-and-trade ..." Its own version? Is this an admission that current cap-and-trade policies are a failure? What makes you think that any cap-and-trade policy will work?

"The previous administration refused to deal with climate change ..." Wrong. The previous administration refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty, which we all know was a dismal failure that all participants failed to meet.

"There are major hidden costs to carbon-heavy fuels ..." There are also major hidden costs to non-carbon-heavy fuels. If we moved to all-electric cars tomorrow, where is the electricity coming from (assuming, of course, that the grid could handle the load)? Coal plants? More air-borne carbon; therefore, not a solution. Hydroelectric? That dams up the rivers, and unbalances local ecosystems. Solar panels? A major economic cost; I don't have the $30K for puting panels on my house, so I don't know where the nation is going to get the money for this. Wind? We tried that off the coast of Massachusetts, and the NIMBY crowd is still fighting that one off. Nuclear? Hey, that could work, but I don't think the US is ready for that yet.

A lot of issues were highlighted in your article, but you didn't offer any solutions. And with no solutions to take to Copenhagen, there won't be any solutions coming out of Copenhagen.

Posted by: c0lnag0 | November 22, 2009 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company