Actions that Promise and Practices that Fall Short
Almost all national governments now recognize the reality of climate change, and the need to respond. As should be clear from the previous chapter, the costs of inaction eventually become prohibitive. The repertoire of actions available to governments (and others) is substantial, and in this chapter we take a look at what can be done. Many actions ought to make a difference. Yet there prove to be formidable reasons why governments often do not adopt them; and when they do, policies that ought to work on paper are crafted and implemented in ways that render them less effective or even counterproductive. The reasons have a lot to do with the way powerful interests, dominant discourses, and political-economic systems are configured in today’s world. They have still more to do with the profound and novel challenge that climate change presents—driving home the need to contemplate bigger questions about how societies are organized, not just what governments and others should do. These larger questions receive our attention in subsequent chapters, but it is important to examine the repertoire of available actions, still needed in any reconfigured systems. Policy discussions often focus on major actions like a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme that would increase the cost of burning fossil fuel and so provide incentives to reduce its use, develop renewable technologies and, eventually, change lifestyles. But before rushing to design some optimal single instrument like this, we should think about all the other established practices and policies that make a difference, and that could be changed for the better. For example, coal mining is typically taxed lightly, but could be taxed more. In the US, homeowners can deduct mortgage interest from their taxable income, encouraging construction of large homes spaced further apart; that deduction could be focused on more efficient housing. Zoning laws could be changed to make urban landscapes more energy efficient and pedestrian friendly. Governments could redirect existing spending on research and development to cleaner energy. Further action possibilities include sequestration and long-term storage of carbon in forests and other biomass, and discouraging the release of carbon from plants resulting from land clearing.