Small appliances and toxics the only "Command & Control" example? And you sneak some C&C discussion into the discussion of labeling.

You are so sure that stuff like CAFE and building standards is wrong headed that you don't even mention it to criticize? I mean what about a chapter on command & control? Or at least a significant section in your toolbox? I mean no one seriously questions the need for health and safety or fire safety regulations. No one argues for taxing e-coli. Why do you treat cases where this applies in environmental regulation as exceptions? Or as an economist do you have to kind sneak discussion of Command & Control in the back door or risk losing your professional reputation?

I'm not sure how to respond to your comments. Remember, this is a book about environmental issues not fire codes and worker safety standards for OSHA. I think I was pretty clear about a great need for C&C regulation in the realm of toxins- much more than most economists freely admit- so again, I don't quite understand your critique.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

Because I think we need C & C in greenhouse gas regulations. max emissions per square foot or resident/full time employee equiv. Max emissions per passenger and ton mile. Max emissions per kWh. This is at least as important as some of the other stuff you include. And if you disagree that these make economic sense, then that is worth discussing too.

actually, I think if we have a binding and significant greenhouse gas tax we won't need much C&C but some of your suggestions make sense- I think however, between your type of C&C regulations and a greenhouse gas tax it's clear that the latter would be more effective (not that they are mutually exclusive).

Thanks for the comments by the way. I'm always open to debate/discussion and don't claim to have all the answers....

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.