A few years ago environmentalists led a concerted effort to enact Cap and Trade systems in the United States and Europe. Cap and Trade, we were told, was necessary to reduce carbon emissions that were causing global warming. Europe complied, adopting a cap and trade system in 2005. The United States did not. But as an article in The Economist notes this week, things have not turned out quite as expected:
Over the past five years America has recorded a decline in greenhouse-gas emissions of 450m tonnes, the biggest anywhere in the world. Ironically, given its far greater effort to tackle climate change, the European Union has seen its emissions rise, partly because its higher gas prices (linked to oil) have led to an increase in coal-fired power generation.
It’s not quite clear how higher gas prices are supposed to lead to more coal-powered electricity. In any event, European emissions are also on the rise due to a move away from nuclear power (environmentalists largely oppose nuclear power). By contrast, America’s emission reductions have been due in large part to its increased reliance on shale gas made possible by fracking (environmentalists largely oppose fracking). In fact, fracking is now expected to lead to more reductions in carbon emissions by 2020 than if the United States had adopted cap and trade.
To sum up: environmentalists want to reduce carbon emissions, but the method they favor doesn’t do so, and the things that actually do reduce emissions they are opposed to. And they wonder why people don’t listen to them more often.
(H/T The Money Illusion)
“