The experience of the United States—and, indeed, the world—with emissions trading is limited principally to three programs. None of these has before been subjected to close, critical analysis to determine whether they in fact are the unbridled successes that their proponents claim. There can be little doubt that trading certainly failed in two of the three cases examined, RECLAIM and leaded gasoline, and seems destined to do the same in the third, acid rain. The record is so stark and compelling that any expansion of trading beyond its current scope should be halted, and existing regimes should be rescinded before they cause further damage. This analysis does not pretend to be the exhaustive effort that ought to be devoted to trading before it is extended beyond its current scope. It is, nevertheless, the most ambitious effort undertaken to date, which is, in and of itself, a reflection of the abdication of responsibility by government officials in the United States and elsewhere, who are proposing to extend trading into new arenas without careful review of U.S. experience. If such a novel, untried approach were being advocated by communities other than polluters and their allies, the suggestion would be rejected out of hand by government and business alike. At the very least, proposals would be subjected to extraordinary scrutiny. It merits noting that much of the pressure to extend trading into new arenas is generated by those anxious for the appearance of progress in addressing global warming and power plant emissions. Public interest groups have increasingly embraced such proposals in the mistaken belief that any action is better than none at all. Two generations of American children with diminished intelligence, hundreds of thousands in children subjected to years of illness and hundreds of lakes that remain acidified belie such a belief. In the cases of smog, acid rain and leaded gasoline, there was room for error, and time for corrective action. There will be neither in the case of global warming. Perhaps the conclusions of this analysis are too pessimistic. Then again, perhaps not. Government, universities, and some public interest groups have the resources to amplify on and confirm—or refute—this examination. They also have an obligation to do so.
展开▼
