CR Nation

Currently, Congress is considering several major and costly climate change legislative proposals in both houses, all of which will likely have a negligible impact on climate change – the existence of which is still in question amongst scientists, politicians, and the general public – because substantial action on global warming is not economically viable

Beyond the framework of political philosophy (whether it is government’s proper role to address climate change and whether the manner in which it addresses the problem is consistent with it determined proper role) and the framework of political utility (whether is can be reasonable expected that government action will achieve its desired end) is economic theory.

The application of economic theory to climate changes hinges (or seems to) on the premise that individuals rationally employ a cost-benefits analysis to determine the economic effectiveness of a given behavior or exchange, i.e. that every transaction is a result of a voluntary acknowledgement that there is benefit in the transaction for all parties involved.

The problem with government involvement in climate change is not whether government (if determined to be its proper role) can require (through economic regulation) solutions that if achieved would reduce or solve a climate change problem (if one determines one exists).

To this end, the WaPo writes,

Energy and climate experts say the world already possesses the technological know-how for trimming greenhouse gas emissions enough to slow the perilous rise in the Earth’s temperatures.

So, we could as a race and nation solve global warming (assuming there is something to solve); but again that is not the problem and never has been. Rather, the problem is whether those solutions are economically viable enough to make such solution politically possible; and economic viability is determined using a cost-benefit analysis. In using the cost-benefit model, the general public simply does not think that there is economic benefit for both parties when the exchange includes more government regulation. Within the current equilibrium no one wants to choose the climate over their job; and if forced to choose they will choose their job.

People look at the threat climate change poses to them economically and then compare it to the threat government regulation poses them economically; and at the current moment very few are willing to pay the costs associated with legislation that substantially seeks to solve, or reduce the effects of, climate change because those costs are so incredibly high and will so drastically hurt their socio-economic status.

This is because more people are in danger of losing their jobs and way of life from government regulation than from climate change; and they know it. And this explains why the climate change bills, if passed, will have little impact, because meaningful legislation is not economically viable for the vast majority of the general public (and therefore not politically suitable); and won’t be as long as government regulation poses are bigger threat to the economy than climate change.

The WaPo had this to say on the huge economic cost of substantial climate change legislation and its relationship to the legislation currently in Congress:

Because of the enormous cost of addressing global warming, the energy legislation considered by Congress so far will make barely a dent in the problem, while farther-reaching climate proposals stand a remote chance of passage.

The potential economic impact of meaningful climate legislation — enough to reduce U.S. emissions by at least 60 percent — is vast. Automobiles would have to get double their current miles to the gallon. Building codes would have to be tougher, requiring use of more energy-efficient materials. To stimulate and pay for new technologies, U.S. electricity bills could rise by 25 to 33 percent, some experts estimate; others say the increase could be greater.

Most of the technologies that could reduce greenhouse gases are not only expensive but would need to be embraced on a global scale, scientists say. Many projections for 2030 include as many as 1 million wind turbines worldwide; enough solar panels to cover half of New Jersey, massive reforestation; a major retooling of the global auto industry; as many as 400 power plants fitted with pricey equipment to capture carbon dioxide and store it underground; and, most controversial, perhaps 350 new nuclear plants around the world.

And finally, Johnathan Adler of Volokh Conspiracy had this to offer:

This is the nub of the climate change problem: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions enough to make a difference will require cuts far greater than anyone is willing to pay for — and this will remain the case until there are substantial technological breakthroughs to reduce the cost of controlling emissions or sequestering carbon.