Economists and Greenhouse Emissions

A case before the Supreme Court this term concerns whether or not the EPA has authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson says EPA clearly has that authority. Others disagree, including two lower courts. Some excellent economists disagree as well. Here is their amicus brief. It is worth reading because it is a nice piece of policy analysis.

Their money-quote is the following:

Our conclusion is that regulation of carbon dioxide under
Section 202(a) is likely to bring with it a number of adverse
consequences. This does not mean that policies to control
greenhouse gases should be rejected out of hand. Rather,
our view is that the use of the regulatory mechanisms afforded
by Section 202(a) is insupportable and that there are
other more cost-effective policy options for addressing
GHGs that should be considered instead. In particular,
economists generally consider incentive-based mechanisms,
such as carbon taxes or marketable permits for carbon reduction,
to be much more likely to yield net benefits than would
performance-based standards, such as those proposed by petitioners
before the agency. Accordingly, EPA’s decision not
to regulate under Section 202(a) was reasonable.