Introduction
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration defines “climate change” as the “long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth’s local, regional, and global climates.” (NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratories). Climate change is an issue that has a significant impact on the lives of the population of the United States, as well as the country’s sustainable development goals. These consequences can lead to extensive negative effects on the security of food and water, human well-being, economies, and society, and consequential losses and harm to both nature and individuals. (IPCC 42). Since 2000 in the United States, the policies created by or proposed to the government to try to mitigate the effects of climate change have been the question of many debates, and thus, have become a complex and multifaceted issue since, naturally, there is more than one way to solve the issue. This begs the question, to what extent are policies intended to mitigate and prevent the effects of climate change effective in the United States? Simply answered, because the US’s existing climate policy relies on cooperation, both within government and between people, these policies are not effective enough at combatting the effects of climate change.
Government Cooperation and Climate Policy Ineffectiveness
Policies that intend to prevent climate change are ineffective because they rely on cooperation in government. According to Aaron Regunberg, a law clerk in the United States District Court of Rhode Island, in his peer-reviewed report on the Federal Reserve and its connection to US climate policy, the US is falling behind other countries when it comes to considering climate change when designing their policies and plans (Regunberg 190). This highlights the ineffectiveness because it relies on cooperation between the Federal Reserve and the executive government. Similarly, Joseph E Aldy, a Professor of the Practice of Public Policy at Harvard, argues in his peer-reviewed report on the issues with current climate policies that most climate policies are not an end-all-be-all, and have many flaws. Some of the most prominent flaws, Aldy argues, are limited scope, high cost, and faulty plans for offsets (Aldy and Pizer 181). These flaws are due to having to compromise in the lawmaking process between multiple parties, which demonstrates how these policies can be ineffective because they rely on cooperation. Donald A. Carr, the Chair of the International Environmental Law Committee in the American Bar Association, agrees with Aldy in his peer-reviewed report on the Kyoto Climate Protocol, by stating that future climate policies will most likely also fail; however, he would also disagree with Aldy because Carr states that the lack of cooperation is due to corporations and industries (especially fossil fuel industries) and how they are not likely to accept climate policy. After all, it hurts their profitability due to increased expenses and regulations when it comes to compliance with climate policies such as the Kyoto Protocol, an international policy aimed at reducing carbon emissions (Carr and Thomas 193). Because most climate change policy in the United States relies on cooperation both within the government and the private sector, climate policy affecting the country’s sustainable development is largely ineffective.
Public Cooperation and Government Intervention in Climate Change Policies
In addition to the creation of climate change reduction policies relying on cooperation within the US government, another reason why these are often ineffective is because they rely on the cooperation of the people they affect. In his report on strategies to reduce carbon emissions, Gerald T. Gardner, a professor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, would argue similarly to Aldy on the fact that most of the effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rely on the diligence of individuals, such as reducing travel and reducing energy use (Gardner and Stern 16-19). These actions, when compounded with the diligence of others, can have a much more significant impact. However, not everyone will comply with them because people often don’t want to, or are unable to. Gardner concedes this in his study: “Many households lack the funds needed to make the investments…and buyers of existing or newly built homes usually cannot choose the efficiency of heating and air-conditioning equipment and insulation.” (Gardner and Stern 23). This shows how policy fails to consider that much of what it is asking cannot be effectively carried out because it relies on collaboration, in this case, the collaboration between households to reduce their energy and transportation use. However, the IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in their annual report on climate change, would both agree and disagree with Gardner. They would agree that to reduce the impacts of climate change, significant cooperation between people would be necessary, but they would disagree that it is only the people that should work together, as they believe that to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, the government should create programs that physically remove carbon from the atmosphere (IPCC 85). This differs from Gardner’s standpoint, as the methods IPCC suggests would require significant intervention from the government. However, this level of cooperation has not been achieved yet, and according to Carr, it likely will not in the long run. This need for cooperation between people demonstrates the ineffectiveness of current climate change policies.
Public Desire, Carbon Tax, and Cap-and-Trade Debates
However, people still want to keep the possibility of climate change regulation open. As Erik Lachapelle, an Assistant Professor at the Université de Montréal, states in his peer-reviewed report on the public response to climate policies, an average of 70% of Americans want the government to regulate climate change in some capacity (Lachapelle et al. 345). This demonstrates how people are aware of the crisis at hand and want it to be rectified. According to Lachapelle, a carbon tax is the most popular and effective option (Lachapelle et al. 346). A carbon tax, according to Amina Chelly, an assistant professor of Industrial Engineering at the National Engineering School of Tunis, in her peer-reviewed research on carbon taxation strategies, is a policy that “aims to control emissions through taxation; that is, each industry is charged a tax that is proportional to the size of the emissions generated.” (Chelly et al. 3477). This option would most likely be the most effective because it does not rely solely on the cooperation of the American government or populace. Instead, it simply collects money from corporations in proportion to the amount of climate change they would likely be responsible for to deter them from producing more. However, Daniel Mastisoff, an assistant professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Public Policy, would likely disagree with Chelly in his research on carbon taxation policies, in favor of a “Cap and Trade” system, where organizations’ carbon emissions would be limited. If they needed more, they could trade with other organizations. Mastisoff states, “Under most circumstances, the cap and trade system is considered superior to the command and control approach because cap and trade, in theory, is more cost-effective for businesses and society. Cap and trade encourages businesses to develop more efficient technologies and allow businesses that can most cheaply reduce their emissions to do so, while businesses with high emission reduction costs do not have to reduce emissions and can instead purchase permits on the market.” (Mastisoff 12). However, both Chely and Mastisoff would likely agree that because current policy is ineffective due to the need for cooperation, future policies should place most of the work between the government and corporations. Both a carbon tax and a cap and trade system are systems that levy restrictions from the government onto organizations. This need for policy reform demonstrates how current climate policies are ineffective.
Conclusion
Cooperation between government branches and collaboration from individuals and industries often results in compromises limiting the efficiency of climate change policies. Addressing climate change requires reevaluation and shifting toward strategies that place more responsibility on government and corporations. Climate change policies remain largely ineffective due to heavy reliance on cooperation within the government and among the general populace; however, some solutions would prevent this from becoming an issue.
Works Cited
- Aldy, Joseph E., and William A. Pizer. “Issues in Designing U.S. Climate Change Policy.” Energy Journal, vol. 30, no. 3, 2009, pp. 179-209. Business Source Elite, DOI. Accessed 8 January 2024.
- Carr, Donald A., and William L. Thomas. “The Kyoto Protocol and US Climate Change Policy: Implications for American Industry.” Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, vol. 7, no. 2, 1998, p. 191. Business Source Elite, DOI. Accessed 8 January 2024.
- Chelly, Amina, et al. “A Comparative Study of Progressive Carbon Taxation Strategies: Impact on Firms’ Economic and Environmental Performances.” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 60, no. 11, 2022, pp. 3476–3500. Business Source Elite, DOI. Accessed 11 January 2024.
- Gardner, Gerald T., and Paul C. Stern. “The Short List: The Most Effective Actions U.S. Households Can Take to Curb Climate Change.” Environment, vol. 50, no. 5, 2008, pp. 12-25. Points of View Reference Center, DOI. Accessed 8 January 2024.
- IPCC. “Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” 2023, pp. 35-115, DOI. Accessed 8 January 2024.
- Lachapelle, Erick, et al. “Public attitudes toward climate science and climate policy in federal systems: Canada and the United States Compared 1.” Review of Policy Research, vol. 29, no. 3, 2012, pp. 334-357. Deep Blue Repositories, Link. Accessed 8 January 2024.
- Mastisoff, Daniel C. “Making Cap-and-Trade Work: Lessons from the European Union Experience.” Environment, vol. 52, no. 1, 2010, pp. 10-19. Military & Government Collection, DOI. Accessed 11 January 2024.
- NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratories. “What Is Climate Change? | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.” NASA Climate Change, Link. Accessed 10 January 2024.
- Regunberg, Aaron. “The Federal Reserve’s Responsibilities in a Warming World: A Normative Case and Strategic Primer for Fed Action on Climate Change.” Ecology Law Quarterly, vol. 50, no. 1, 2023, pp. 181–207. GreenFILE, DOI. Accessed 8 January 2024.
