Environmental Policy, Government Interventionism, and Public Choice
The environment has many instances of government intervention. One of these government interventions targets Climate Change, and reducing the impact that humans impart on the natural environment through industrialization and everyday existence. Yet, as Roger Miller, Danie Benjamin, and Douglass North note on formulating a viable environmental policy initiative, although “[a]tmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are rising and human actions are playing a key role;” the “effective mitigation requires massive coordination on a global scale, something that seems unlikely in the foreseeable future,” (Miller, R., et al. p. 182). Moreover, the only method of policy implementation would have to be coercive. Environmental policy must utilize public choice rather than mandated redistribution and imposing punishments on those who choose to opt out. Converse to government's current climate change policy initiatives, Genesis warns against triangular intervention, as the process of industrialization is a free trade between God and man. As it is written in the Old Testament, “[t]he LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it,” (Genesis 2:15; ESV). The cure for pollution is located in the Old Testament; in Psalms we are reminded that “[t]he earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers,” (Psalms 24:1-2; ESV). The government’s coercive efforts to impose regulations that encourage climate change, actually pervert the natural industrialization process that occurs within a free market. The cure for climate change is not government regulations, but public choice. Through offering citizens the option to opt in on the clean energy free market must result in a reciprocal benefit in order for the individual to willingly engage in self-regulation. Coercive policy does not produce reciprocal benefits, but instead punishes people who are unwilling to pay higher prices, or receive a product of reduced efficiency. Consumers cannot rely on theoretical benefits; as any free trade relies on immediate gains for both parties. The New Testament echoes the importance of public choice, in that it invokes an obligation on the citizen. In the New Testament, Paul writes that “[f]or by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him,” (Colossians 1:16; ESV). Researchers Maximillian Kotz, et al. reported that “we find that the world economy is committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years independent of future emission choices,” (Chicago). Yet the stewardship of self regulation, in both agriculture and industrialization, will allow for public choice to reform acclaimed excessive green house gas emissions. Miller, et al. note that “[a]griculture is another area where adaptation will be profound and highly effective in mitigating the impacts of warming,” (Miller, R., et al. p. 182). But Miller, et al. recognize the need for citizens to make these personal choices of adaptation; both through their personal habits, and the choices made by leaders of their industries. Giving man the duty of stewardship imparts a benevolent effect to his environment. Miller concludes that “[h]ence individuals, firms, and local governments all have the appropriate incentives to adapt promptly and correctly to the changing climate,” (Miller, R., et al. p. 182). Lastly, and possibly the most important point, the majority of American pollution occurs on government property. While factories can make personal choices to reduce their own carbon emissions and waste output; the government should be an example of the regulation that it seeks to impose. It is not.
In sum, the utility of “adaptation is a powerful, immediate tool;” while the cost of public choice policy is subjective to the individual and dependent on benevolent reciprocal provisions. Costs must first be calculated using a cost-benefit analysis; not the imposition of risk risk analysis. Providing consumers with no benefit, is market coercion and produces detriment. Worse, it neglects to provide a solution to the one task it is created to amend; a persistent burden on the annual federal budget. Lastly, Congress cannot coerce the remainder of the world to abide by climate regulation. Regulations cannot produce efficient clean energy products, nor can it reduce the pollution produced by industrialization. To achieve the transition to cleaner forms of energy, incentives ought to take precedence over coercion. Coercion does not work internationally; thus only by incentive and free market trade will cleaner energy products be brought to market.
Bibliography
Chicago. (Accessed on December 8th, 2024). Climate Change May Cost $38 Trillion a Year by 2049, Study Says. https://epic.uchicago.edu/news/climate-change-may-cost-38-trillion-a-year-by-2049-study-says/
Miller, R. L. (2017). The Economics of Public Issues, 20th Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf 10.3.1]. Retrieved from vbk://9780134532035