Abstract

Although we were again reminded in 2008 of the unreliability of markets, pollution mitigation and environmental improvement become increasingly intertwined with market economics. We seem irrationally to continue and in fact, increase the role of the market in maintaining and improving human health and the environment. In this article, the author reviews four popular schemes for market particiption in human health and the environment: emissions trading, the top runner program, corporate average fuel economy (CAFE), and technology forcing. This review demonstrates that when each of these programs has been deemed "effective", it generally means "economically profitable", not effective in improving human health or the environment. The review further shows that as these four methods are compared one to the other, when they do work to improve human health or the environement, their relative ability to do so is directly proportional to the degree of legal control, and indirectly proportional to the role of the market.