ShareThis Page
Market, not regulation, should drive clean energy |
Featured Commentary

Market, not regulation, should drive clean energy


FLINT, Mich.

Is there any doubt there are already too many environmental regulations?

A recent government report found total U.S. regulatory costs of almost $2 trillion annually.

Consider the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule requiring states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent on average by 2030: Compliance will cost a fortune, while destroying an untold number of jobs.

The rest of the world isn’t imposing carbon regulations, so the EPA rules make America less competitive internationally.

Technological innovation is already reducing emissions more quickly and more efficiently than heavy-handed government regulation ever could. Evidence shows proper incentives combined with ingenuity can drive technological advances of world-changing originality and scale.

The textbook case is shale gas.

Thanks to the shale revolution, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have dropped sharply since 2007. Meanwhile, the dramatic increase in natural gas production — a result of technological advances in fracking combined with horizontal drilling — has turned what had been a gas shortage into a surplus of cheap, low-carbon gas for electricity production, heating and manufacturing.

New revolutionary advances in fracking have done more to reduce emissions than any other activity. The amount of natural gas produced per rig in the Marcellus region has increased eight-fold since 2009.

With enough breakthroughs, solar energy could eventually become a dependable source of electricity. But solar currently accounts for only a tiny fraction of the nation’s electricity generation.

Solar and other renewable energy sources alone can’t get us where we need to be soon enough. We need other low-carbon sources, and one of the best options is nuclear power.

The environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to nuclear power than anything else it’s done. This is the kind of irrational thinking that is hampering efforts to address climate change.

Reliable, affordable, zero-carbon nuclear power accounts for nearly two-thirds of America’s emission-free energy. Reducing greenhouse emissions significantly might be impossible without it. Fortunately, five new U.S. reactors are under construction.

It is time to end the delusional thinking that heavy-handed government regulation is the best and most cost-effective way to address climate change. Instead, we need to start thinking more realistically about market-based technological solutions to our environmental challenges.

In short, approaches that use market-driven innovative technologies would help both the economy and environment, and that’s an outcome that would benefit the United States and the world.

Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics at the University of Michigan-Flint and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.