We wish to begin with a note of thanks to Richard Morgenstern, Jeffrey Hopkins, Laurie Johnson, Daniel Lashof, and Kristen Sheeran for their comments on our article, Climate Change and U.S. Interests. The comments have helped our own thinking on the subject, and it is gratifying to know that our paper stimulated such thoughtful responses. In the few pages we have for our reply, we focus on the claims that are most important and in the greatest tension with our article.

Jody Freeman’s and Andrew Guzman’s article, Climate Change and U.S. Interests, was engaging and convincing in many aspects, though I am not sure that the parts that engaged and convinced me were the parts that Freeman and Guzman intended. While I find their introductory premise flawed, these flaws are not fatal. Still, the material that follows must necessarily be updated and enhanced.

Developing a rational, globally efficient time path for pricing or controlling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions presents daunting challenges to policy makers, with large scientific uncertainties, and the absence of consensus over the long term goals of climate policies. In their article Climate Change and U.S.

Economic analysis occupies a central role in national debates over climate and energy policy. As the scientific consensus on climate change becomes clear and unambiguous, the case for inaction on climate change is increasingly argued on grounds that it will be too costly to initiate more than token initiatives.

In this sobering article, Freeman and Guzman (FG) challenge the argument that the United States could be a “climate change winner,” which asserts that, due to its temperate climate and advanced economy, climate change will benefit the United States relative to other countries or even in absolute terms. They argue that, setting aside any moral argument that the United States has an obligation to act aggressively to reduce emissions, it is independently in its self-interest to do so.

There is, after years of debate, a widespread though not universal consensus in the United States that climate change is real, that it is primarily the result of human activity, and that it poses a serious global threat. A consensus on the appropriate U.S. response, however, remains elusive. While the new focus on climate change suggests that the United States may play a key role in attempts to negotiate a new international agreement to reduce global emissions,2 there is serious debate in academic and policy circles over whether doing so would be in the national interest.

Professors Flatt and Collins should be commended for seeking to answer one of the most perplexing questions that has plagued environmental protection advocates and regulators in the United States for over 40 years—how to improve compliance with federal environmental laws, and therefore, improve the quality of the environment.

How well are environmental laws in the United States being enforced, and what difference does that make to the quality of our air and water? Professors Flatt and Collins work hard to find the answers in Environmental Enforcement in Dire Straits: There Is No Protection for Nothing and No Data for Free, but run into some familiar roadblocks.

While I take issue with the title, suggesting that environmental enforcement is in “dire straits,” the body of Professors Flatt and Collins' article does not actually evaluate enforcement, but rather enters the oft-discussed world of attempting to find metrics for measuring the effectiveness of state environmental enforcement actions. Using selected Clean Water Act (CWA) and Clean Air Act (CAA) enforcement data, the authors’ four-year survey compares certain enforcement indicators with two parameters: state per capita environmental spending and the type of state government.

While much of the world debates what our environmental laws should be, the less esoteric question of whether the environmental laws we already have are being properly enforced continues to be insufficiently examined. As we approach the fortieth anniversary of modern environmental law, the answer to this “$64 billion question” still is not clear.