Climate Strategies: "One Step at a Time" or "Don't Jump the Gun"??

by Daniel Farber

July 17, 2012

Cross-posted from Legal Planet.

In some situations, voluntary efforts leads other people to join in, whereas in others, it encourages them to hold back.  There’s a similar issue about climate mitigation efforts at the national, regional, or state level.  Do these efforts really move the ball forward?  Or are they counterproductive, because other places increase their own carbon emissions or lose interest in negotiating?

A common sense reaction is that every ton of reduced carbon emissions means one less ton in the atmosphere.  But things aren’t quite that simple.  If we mandate more efficient cars, a number of other things might happen besides the immediate drop in emissions per mile: people might increase their driving because they don’t have to pay as much for gas; the same number of less efficient cars could be sold, but in other countries; or the reduced demand for gas might lower prices, leading to higher gas sales somewhere in the world. Other countries might feel that if we’re cutting emissions they can wait a little longer to address the issue.

There are also many reasons why our program might reduce emissions elsewhere.  Automakers might prefer to produce the same models for multiple markets, here and elsewhere.  Or the new technology may be appealing to consumers in other places.  Other places might see our regulations and decide to copy them.  And seeing that we are taking action could increase confidence that a bargain can be reached, improving prospects for negotiations.

There’s necessarily an element of speculation in all of this.  We can’t run experiments in which sub-global mitigation takes place on some planets while others do nothing pending a global agreement.  In a recent paper, I’ve tried to look at what limited evidence and modeling seems relevant. On balance, the optimistic view seems more plausible.  Acting locally while thinking globally may not be the ideal strategy, but it’s the best we have right now.

Be the first to comment on this entry.
We ask for your email address so that we may follow up with you, ask you to clarify your comment in some way, or perhaps alert you to someone else's response. Only the name you supply and your comment will be displayed on the site to the public. Our blog is a forum for the exchange of ideas, and we hope to foster intelligent, interesting and respectful discussion. We do not apply an ideological screen, however, we reserve the right to remove blog posts we deem inappropriate for any reason, but particularly for language that we deem to be in the nature of a personal attack or otherwise offensive. If we remove a comment you've posted, and you want to know why, ask us (info@progressivereform.org) and we will tell you. If you see a post you regard as offensive, please let us know.

Also from Daniel Farber

Daniel A. Farber is the Sho Sato Professor of Law, Director of the California Center for Environmental Law and Policy, and Chair, Energy & Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley.

Promoting Energy Innovation

Farber | Apr 13, 2018 | Energy

Climate Change in the Courts

Farber | Apr 02, 2018 | Climate Change

Trump, EPA, and the Anti-Regulatory State

Farber | Jan 25, 2018 | Environmental Policy

The Off-Switch Is Inside the Fenceline

Farber | Dec 27, 2017 | Energy

Looking Back on Lucas

Farber | Dec 11, 2017 | Regulatory Policy

The Center for Progressive Reform

455 Massachusetts Ave., NW, #150-513
Washington, DC 20001
info@progressivereform.org
202.747.0698

© Center for Progressive Reform, 2015