Global Climate Change: Three Policy Perspectives VI

CONTENTS FOR THIS SECTION

Federal Policy As Viewed through the Lenses

Conclusion: Balancing the Three Lenses to Develop Policy

List of Tables

2. Influence of the Lenses on Policy Parameters
3. Summary of Lenses
4. Review of Lenses Across Different Policymaking Criteria

Federal Policy As Viewed through the Lenses

Faced with a fundamental problem, such as the potential for global climate change, a policymaker who is looking through the technological lens and focusing on technical fixes tends to take an activist view the government's role -- to support innovation and commercialization. In the same situation, a policymaker who is looking through the economic lens and focusing on the costs and benefits of action tends to view the government's role as limited -- to ensuring that any misfunctioning of the market is corrected. And a policymaker who is looking through the ecological lens and focusing on the need for action to solve the problem tends to see the government actively playing crucial roles -- to inform public understanding, to seek public commitment, and to make available options for solving the problem.

These differing propensities on the role of government among the three perspectives are summarized in table 3. As described in this report, these differences have consequences for one's expectations for government action, depending on the lens one views global climate change through. At the same time, these differing expectations can have consequences for how one views the lenses themselves: that is, persons with a predisposition for limited government are likely to find the economic lens a more appropriate way to approach the issue than the other two lenses, whereas persons with a predisposition for activist government may be more comfortable with the technology and/or ecological lenses.

2. Influence of the Lenses on Policy Parameters

3. Summary of Lenses

Conclusion: Balancing the Three Lenses to Develop Policy

The technological, economic, and ecological "lenses" represent ways of viewing responses to environmental problems. None is inherently more "right" or "correct" than another; rather, they overlap and to varying degrees complement and conflict with each other. Most people hold to each of the lenses to varying degrees and combinations. For example, a person who is quite concerned about the potential of global climate change from an ecological perspective, but concerned also about the economic costs and the effectiveness of a reduction program, might see a "no regrets" policy as most prudent under the circumstances. In contrast, an ecological perspective combined with a strong technological perspective would see no reason for not pushing forward with a strong reduction program without delay. A third possibility could be a risk aversion perspective deriving from cost-benefit concerns combined with a technological perspective, a combination that could lead one to a strong research and development program combined with phased-in and selective technological incentives based on potential cost-effectiveness. The combination of possibilities are many, depending on the depth of commitment to any one perspective or to any particular aspect (seriousness, effectiveness, costs) of the problem.

Table 3 summarizes the three lenses identified in this report. As indicated, they reflect differing assumptions about the nature of the problem, the means to a solution, and the governmental role in crafting that solution. The lenses are not mutually exclusive, but rather reflect differing emphases on what is a very complex issue.

These different emphases can be seen when examining the lenses according to different policymaking criteria; the governmental role differs substantially between the lenses. In actual implementation, any global climate change response would involve the government in multiple roles: promoting new technology, ensuring that the marketplace functions properly, and educating the public.

Table 4 presents other policymaking criteria. Once again, one sees conflict and complementarity across the different lenses. Eliminating non-market barriers can be a key to technological development, a removal that those peering through the economic lens would likely see as appropriate, although difficult. Similarly, those employing the technological lens have no objection to the ecological orientation of those using that lens, although they might question the need for such considerations -- especially since those looking through the ecological lens might demand such thorough analysis of the implications of new technologies that its costs of development could be greatly increased or its adoption might be delayed. However, those viewing through the economic lens might object to the perspective given by the ecological lens, if it were to give weight to values or concerns that could not be justified through cost-benefit analysis (analysis to which those peering through the ecological lens might object).

4. Review of Lenses Across Different Policymaking Criteria

Elements of all three lenses can be seen in the policies promoted by the Clinton Administration and in the actions of the Congress -- although different perspectives dominate. For the Administration, the technological (and to a lesser degree, the ecological) lens appears to dominate. The focus of Administration initiatives is on development and use of conservation and other technologies to achieve the necessary reductions without significant economic pain. That it currently does not include a massive, mandatory program suggests that the economic lens is sufficiently powerful to prevent a strictly ecological lens from dominating the design of a climate change program. The Administration's economic analysis suggests that a flexible marketplace approach could achieve the Kyoto reduction requirements at essentially no GDP loss. The Administration does not consider costs to be the obstacle to reducing greenhouse gases that others consider it to be.

For the Congress, attention is focused on increasing certainty about the problem and the costs of actions, consistent with the economic lens. While Congress did ratify the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change and enacted several global climate change provisions in the 1992 Energy Policy Act, its recent actions have accentuated uncertainties and signaled a "go slow" approach. This is reflected in several actions: Both Houses have proposed to reduce funding for the Administration's technology-based Climate Change Initiative primarily on the grounds that such actions or expenses on global climate change are not yet warranted because of uncertainties concerning global warming, costs, and the commitment of other nations. During the appropriations process, the House Appropriations Committee proposed language that would have prohibited any expenditures for educating the public on global climate change (a proviso that was later struck by an amendment adopted on the floor).⁽⁶⁹⁾ As noted earlier, the Senate, on July 25, 1997, prior to Kyoto, agreed by a unanimous vote of 95-0 to S.Res. 98, which states the Administration should sign no agreement that would result in serious harm to the economy or that does not include developing countries (along with developed countries) within its control regime. In addition, the resolution states that any agreement submitted to the Senate include a detailed and comprehensive economic impact assessment of the treaty. The Congress' current actions on global climate change appear to focus on the issue from an economic perspective, which highlights risks of high costs, while the Administration's current activities focus on the issue mostly from a technological perspective, which discounts the risk of high costs.

Ultimately, it is the balance between all three perspectives that will shape policy options and eventually determine the character and timing of any policy response to the problem. Evolving Administration policy appears to involve incorporating an economic perspective based on tradeable permits, and an ecological perspective based on increased public education. In the longer term, the Administration is suggesting that stronger measures will be necessary, reflecting an underlying ecological perspective on the issue. However, the Administration has stressed that it prefers a market-based tradeable permit program to implement necessary reductions -- a clear recognition of the value of the economic lens. Meanwhile, recent congressional actions have suggested that the risk of economic disruption is so high compared to the risk of global climate change -- given scientific uncertainties about warming, plus uncertainties about the costs and benefits of actions to reduce greenhouse gases -- that further policy development and implementation are not yet justified. (As indicated by S.Res. 98, Congress is particularly concerned about the effectiveness of any actions the United States might take if large developing nations such as China and India do not commit to specific control requirements.) Many in Congress are concerned that current efforts at technology development and public education may be a "backdoor" to possible implementation of a treaty that is neither justified nor ratified.

The effort by various interests to convince the public that their perspective is correct, and that those of others reflect either wishful thinking, misinformation, or excuses, will likely continue. Such efforts will be affected by improvements in the scientific understanding of global climate change, and of the domestic and international implications for strategies for addressing it. However, the pivotal decision-making point -- whether that understanding warrants action or not -- will be mediated in large part by the lens through which policymakers view the new knowledge.

Footnotes

68. ^(back) Lester B. Lave and Hadi Dowlatabadi, "Climate Change: The Effects of Personal Beliefs and Scientific Uncertainty," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 27, no. 10 (1993), pp. 1968, 1972.

69. ^(back) "The [House Appropriations] Committee is concerned that the [Environmental Protection] Agency ... may be engaging in activity that is tantamount to lobbying in an effort to build public support for implementation of the [Kyoto] Protocol. While the Committee recognizes the importance of educating the public on environmental issues, there can be a very fine line between education and advocacy of an issue. The Agency ... [is] thus directed to refrain from conducting educational outreach or informational seminars on policies underlying the Kyoto Protocol until ... [it] is ratified by the Senate." House. Committee on Appropriations. Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1999. House Report 105-610, p. 59.

See Dennis W. Snook, Coordinator, Appropriations for FY1999: VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, CRS Report 98-204.

.........