The Double Edged Sword of Climate Policy

By Juan Morfin

“There are no solutions, only trade-offs.”

I’ll never forget hearing my political economy professor mutter these words on the first day of class two years ago. I was unaware of the meaning and utility of this phrase until I read Harold Winter’s book, Trade-offs. In Winter’s terms, the phrase applies to almost everything. Also known as the concept of opportunity cost in economics, this thinking supposes that for each solution to a problem, one must give something up to arrive at that solution.

Think about your decision to go to work. Each time you do this, you’re giving up time that could be used to do something else. Maybe you have kids, so long hours at work mean that you don’t see them until late into the night. You’re giving up something in return for something else. In this case, you’re giving up family time in return for a decent living. 

Climate policy works in a similar way, and must be crafted in awareness of trade-offs. While I’m firmly grounded in the science of climate change and consider it a great threat to our health and ecosystems, that doesn’t exempt me from criticizing a number of policies that are meant to provide healing. Actually, this stance emboldens me to speak my piece.

In 2007, former president George W. Bush pledged in his State of the Union address to cut the United States’ use of gasoline. He proposed that plant-based biofuels, like ethanol, could replace fossil fuels, with an added bonus that these substitutes could be made in the United States. In time, these proposals failed to materialize as the United States had little space or resources available to extract the oils that would be used to make these biofuels. Instead, we imported oils from a small south-east Asian island called Borneo.

At first, this seemed like it could be a good idea. The United States would simultaneously fund a developing economy in Borneo while creating consumer habits that led to a healthier planet. The results, however, turned out to be mass deforestation, air pollution, and water pollution. No perfect solution after all. – In addition, cutting down trees has been found to release a considerable amount of carbon into the atmosphere, driving climate change and contributing to the problem rather than providing a solution. With climate policies like this one, we’re failing to step forward, only jumping from one source of pollution to another.

It doesn’t have to be like this. Climate policy that takes into account the delicate balance of emissions, the human factors between developed and developing countries, and the long-term results of energy use should be possible. Ideas which factor in the double-edged sword of climate policy, the trade-offs, include replacing trees after felling, though even small actions like this fall short of climate policies’ expansive goals. To keep on the path toward a sustainable future, we must craft more policies that take trade-offs into account.

Cover Image by Justus Menke on Upsplash