Global Warming, Cap and Trade and the EPA

Global warming, also referred to as "global climate change", is getting a lot of attention in the news and on Capital Hill these days. It should be.

On March 12, 2009 the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change concluded that "the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized". [Note: the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]

Now, Congress is considering passing the Waxman-Markey climate bill. Many environmental advocates have come out against the bill citing a so called "poison pill" or "Trojan horse" provision that prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm an environmental engineer and graduate of the Presidio School of Management Executive Program for Sustainable Management. I compost, drive a Prius, ride my bike to the bank, and try to substitute tofu for red meat when I can. You would think I would parrot this complaint, right?

I don't.

I believe that the only way to solve the climate change problem is to enroll private industry in the solution. That is the philosophical basis for Cap & Trade. This isn't just my opinion, it is why we were able to successfully reduce acid rain in the 1990's with a NOx Cap & Trade. Now, we need a similar solution for a much bigger problem; climate change.

The one thing that all successful markets need to function well is clarity. If you were a business, would you wholeheartedly participate in a Cap & Trade program if you thought a regulatory agency might step in a rewrite the rules at any time? You wouldn't would you?

For us to pivot our economy to a post-industrial, low-carbon future, we need the private sector to buy-in. That buy-in will generate engagement and entrepreneurialism, and solutions we can't even imagine today. We cannot be dragged kicking and screaming into a low-carbon future. But we can get there if we harness the same forces that gave us the industrial revolution in the first place.