×
by Tom LaskawyBefore I start, I just want to thank Ezra for inviting me over to talk about environmental and food policy. I promise to keep the doom and gloom to a minimum.Speaking of doom and gloom, I was pleased to see the environmental policy-related dark cloud over Matt Yglesias lift somewhat over the weekend. The reason? First the EPA halted two new coal-fired power plants that were on the verge of construction - plants that had been opposed for years by environmentalists - and then President Obama announced that California (along with 13 other states) could start regulating tailpipe emissions. In his glee, Matt observed:
Cap and trade or carbon tax legislation will, I’m convinced, be an integral element to any serious climate policy. But... there’s quite a lot that responsible regulatory policy can do.No kidding. It's true that this question of the relative role of cap-and-trade vs. regulation has been bouncing around the enviro blogosphere for a while now. And believe it or not, as necessary as a robust, functioning cap-and-trade system is to addressing climate change, the opinion among many environmentalists is very much that government regulation, i.e. emissions cuts by decree, holds the key to a low-carbon future. The reason? The emissions cuts are going to have to be really really really big and markets, while very good at the trading part, don't do such a good job with the capping part.
