Mandates-(f)


 * Barker, Terry, Paul Ekins. “The Costs of Kyoto for the US Economy.” __Energy Journal__** **25.3 (2004): 53-71.**

The authors, researchers from the University of Cambridge and the University of Westminster, conduct a literature review of research conducted prior to the United States rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. Barker and Ekins attempt to discover ways to mitigate climate change without significantly harming the U.S. economy. Their literature review uncovers several surprising findings, most notably that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in significant costs to the U.S economy so long as emission-reduction policies were “well-designed.” The authors point out that any energy policy that requires reduction of emissions would result in significant costs for certain sectors (i.e. coal), and that compensation to those sectors would probably be required if a policy were to be politically acceptable. **(Katie Ertmer)**

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 * Abelson, Philip H. “Energy Conservation Is Not Enough.” __Science__ 196, no. 4295 (June 10, 1977): 1159.**

Abelson provides a critique of Carter’s National Energy Plan. The researcher points out that there was enormous public opposition to the plan, and he speculates that some “optimism might [have been] justified if the Plan provided substantially increased incentives for creation of new [energy] supplies” (p. 1159). However, Carter’s plan emphasized energy conservation … “providing no hope that America’s technological capabilities [to generate additional energy supply would] be effectively marshaled to help solve a deepening energy deficit” (p. 1159). Thus, a “missing element [was] inspiration,” and the failure of the plan to appeal to voters’ expectations to maintain standards of living was a key reason that the plan failed garner political support, an important lesson in the deliberation of energy policy alternatives (p. 1159). **(Hilary Straus)**

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++