Integrating the Concepts of Zero Greenhouse-Gas Emissions, the Precautionary Principle, and Environmental Impact Statements for Climate Change Policy Mitigation

Abstract

This article explains the need to integrate the concepts of (a) zero greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, (b) the precautionary principle, and (c) environmental impact statements (EISs) to improve climate change mitigation. Across the United States, governments and corporations are adopting positions with the intent to reach zero GHG emissions in some specified year. The first section of this article clarifies how GHG emitting and carbon removing technologies are involved in the concept of net zero GHG emissions. Following that is a discussion of the precautionary principle that needs to be adopted for climate change mitigation. The precautionary principle originated when it became understood that scientific proof of the causes and extent of harmful environmental damage was often not possible until after it was too late to prevent the damage. In turn, analysis should be carried into EISs, which are documents that specify the impact of proposed projects on the environment. EISs are required reports mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to assess the potential impact of actions affecting the quality of the human environment.

Keywords:

• greenhouse-gas emissions
• precautionary principle
• environmental impact statements

JEL Classification Codes:

• B52
• H43
• Q54
• Q58
• Z18

Notes

1 Carbon dioxide equivalent or CO₂e means the number of metric tons of CO₂ emissions with the same global warming potential as one metric ton of another greenhouse gas (Myhre et al. 2013, 731–737). With regard to non-CO₂ GHG, CO₂e Global Warming Potential values are published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In its Firth Assessment Report, AR5, for example, the global warming potential for the 100-year horizon of one unit of methane and one unit of nitrous oxide is, respectively, 28 and 265 times the global warming potential of one unit of CO₂. The AR5 values are the most recently published, with AR6 due to be published in 2022 where AR5 values might change (Myhre et al. 2013, 731–738).

2 The concern here is not with Nordhaus’s misguided present-value discounting. That is explained elsewhere by F. Gregory Hayden (2021) and Steve Keen (2020).

3 For example, in one environmental impact statement critique completed by coauthor Hayden, the corporation that completed the statement for its own proposed project was allowed by the government to select its own consultant to evaluate that statement. In another environmental impact statement critiqued by Hayden, there was an ongoing nexus of cozy and collaborative relationships between the governing agency that was to make the decision about the statement, the corporation that proposed the project, and corporate lobbyists.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

F. Gregory Hayden

F. Gregory Hayden and Tasnim Ahmed Mahin are, respectively, professor of economics and economics graduate student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. They wish to thank Joe Sandow for his research assistance on environmental impact statements.

Tasnim Ahmed Mahin

F. Gregory Hayden and Tasnim Ahmed Mahin are, respectively, professor of economics and economics graduate student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. They wish to thank Joe Sandow for his research assistance on environmental impact statements.