Based on the success of the EPA's Acid Rain Program (AKA the sulfur dioxide trading program) environmental economists everywhere should be beaming with pride: Politicians now understand that market based trading systems are an economically efficient--and politically acceptable--way to solve environmental problems.
For example, we would have never seen a story like this 10 years ago:
The Republican chairman and the top Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee released on Thursday a "white paper" on climate change issues that must be resolved before they can introduce global warming legislation.
[...]
The paper seeks answers to several key questions, including whether the entire U.S. economy or just certain sectors should be regulated in any greenhouse gas program.
The paper notes that no single sector of the U.S. economy, such as transportation or industry, makes an overwhelming contribution to America's total greenhouse gas emissions.
"If a key design feature is fairness, then no one sector should be singled out," the paper says. "An economy-wide approach also allows for ease in seeking the least-cost path to (emission) reductions through trading systems."
I repeat loudly..."An economy-wide apprach also allows for ease in seeking THE LEAST-COST PATH TO EMISSION REDUCTION THROUGH TRADING SYSTEMS." A Republican and a Democrat declaring that the preferred environmental policy mechanism is tradeable emissions permits. Even though I had nothing to do with coming up with the idea for tradeable emissions systems, I like to think that my 11 years of teaching (belaboring?) the ideas behind them have rubbed off a little on someone somewhere. I therefore declare victory for environmental economists everywhere...so what's left for me to do?
