经贸专业英语报刊阅读教程 第一课 Good policy, a

Good policy, and bad

Some mitigation policies are effective,

some are efficient, and some are neither Dec 3rd 2009 | from the print edition

GREENHOUSE-GAS emissions targets can be implemented through three sorts of policy instruments—regulation, carbon-pricing and subsidies. Governments generally like regulation (because it appears to be cost-free), economists like

carbon prices (because they are efficient) and businesses like subsidies (because they get the handouts).

Regulation can be useful where the market is not working well. Buildings are rarely designed to save energy, because those who put them up do not usually pay the bills and those who occupy them choose them for their views or their looks, not their energy-efficiency. The same goes for appliances, most of which do not use enough energy to affect consumers' choices. Small regulatory changes (see box, next page) can cut energy consumption without distorting the market much. According to

McKinsey, around one-third of the required greenhouse-gas reductions will actually save money. Two-thirds, however, will not. They can be achieved only if companies invest in more expensive, cleaner technology. That will happen only if governments require them to do so, or tax dirty products and processes (through a carbon price), or subsidise clean ones.

In this special report

Getting warmer Is it worth it? The green slump »Good policy, and bad Vampires on a diet Cap and tirade Who cares? A long game Closing the gaps What needs to change Unpacking the problem

Sources & acknowledgementsReprints

Related topics

China Solar energy