Energy and the environment: A sensible, no regrets'' proposal
- Competitive Enterprise Inst., Washington, DC (United States)
America, it seems, uses too much energy. Thus, the government prepares to issue a new round of federal energy efficiency standards for all manner of household appliances. The Sierra Club insists that the federal government increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for automobiles and trucks. Other groups push electric cars. The Clinton Administration, for its part, wants the federal government to subsidize the development and sale of alternative'' energy technologies, including solar panels, and is considering new regulations to drive down the use of fossil fuels. An energy tax was proposed five years ago, with little success, so this time other measures will be used to increase the cost of fuel and encourage Americans to do more with less. A virtually identical list of policy prescriptions was trotted out to address the threats of oil depletion, foreign oil dependence, and even global cooling. It seems no matter what the danger, the solution put forward by the environmental establishment is always the same: increase government control over the economy to drive down energy use. Those nations with the greatest governmental controls over their economy suffered the worst environmental catastrophes. Even in market-oriented economies, most major environmental problems can be traced to governmental subsidies or a failure to protect property rights and market institutions. It is time for environmental activists to learn that environmental protection does not require more government. In most instances, it would do better with less. A free-market no regrets'' policy would consist of the following three elements: (1) removing regulatory barriers to innovation; (2) eliminating subsidies to energy use; and (3) deregulating energy-related markets. The benefit of a no regrets policy is that it produces benefits whether or not the threat of climate change is real. Taxpayers benefit from reduced government spending, businesses benefit from reduced regulation, and they all benefit from the resulting increase in innovation and investment in dynamic sectors of the economy. And, if by some chance a greenhouse apocalypse comes true, a no regrets policy leaves us in a better position to address it. The choice is rather simple: adopt a policy that will impose substantial costs to address an uncertain threat or adopt a policy that pays off whether the world warms or not. For those truly concerned about human welfare, the choice should be clear.
- OSTI ID:
- 6184501
- Journal Information:
- Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment, Vol. 18:4; ISSN 1048-5236
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Canola-Based Automotive Oil Research and Development
Development of an energy conservation voluntary agreement pilot project in the steel sector in Shandong