This policy memo, addressed to a company executive, outlines key domestic strategies the United States could adopt to address anthropogenic climate change. It examines the role of fossil fuels in driving climate change and evaluates two primary policy options: funding the development of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind power, and implementing a cap-and-trade system to create market incentives for reducing carbon emissions. The memo discusses stakeholder considerations, implementation challenges, and the limitations of a cap-and-trade approach. It concludes by recommending a broader strategy that includes international cooperation and domestic adaptation planning.
This paper demonstrates policy analysis writing, a technique that evaluates multiple courses of action against practical and political constraints rather than arguing for a single thesis. The author cites institutional sources (EPA, peer-reviewed science) to ground the analysis, then applies reasoned judgment to assess feasibility — a hallmark of applied policy writing at the undergraduate or early graduate level.
The memo opens by defining anthropogenic climate change and framing three national-level response categories. It then narrows to domestic options, examining alternative energy incentives and cap-and-trade in sequence. A stakeholder section follows, analyzing who holds power over implementation. The conclusion widens the lens again, recommending international engagement and domestic adaptation planning as complementary strategies. This funnel-and-widen structure is characteristic of effective executive policy memos.
To: Executive of a Company
Re: Implications of different approaches for the U.S. to implement and address climate change.
Anthropogenic climate change is climate change dominated by human influences — in particular, human contributions to atmospheric composition. It is established that anthropogenic climate change is likely to continue for many centuries. The effects of climate change on the planet, and on the U.S., will be far-reaching, affecting all aspects of human life on Earth (Karl & Trenberth, 2003).
Climate change is a global problem, but each nation has the ability to make its own contributions to addressing it. There are three main areas where nations can act. The first is to adopt national strategies to stem the pace of climate change; the second is to work within the international system to foster global efforts to reduce that pace; and the third is to adopt national strategies to mitigate the negative effects of climate change on America. This memo predominantly describes options for domestic policies to stem the pace of climate change.
There are a number of policy options for stemming the pace of climate change that can be implemented at the national level. These options begin with the recognition of the reality that burning fossil fuels is the critical contributor to anthropogenic climate change. The burning of fossil fuels has proven to be a critical driver of economic progress since the late 19th century, so for the time being it is impossible to make dramatic, immediate reductions in fossil fuel usage. There are alternatives that can help set such reductions in motion, however. These include policies that encourage the development of alternative energy sources and policies that encourage the more efficient use of fossil fuels.
The first alternative is to direct development funding toward alternative energy sources. One example is solar panels, which can be substituted for fossil fuels in certain instances, such as home heating. Economic incentives in countries like Germany for the purchase of solar panels have resulted in far greater market penetration of the technology than exists in the United States. The climate in many parts of the United States is ideal for solar technology, yet as a nation we have low penetration of it. Further incentives can be used to spur the development of alternative energy technologies. China has superseded the United States as the leader in solar technology, for example, and Europe has done more with wind power. The system of economic incentives with respect to energy currently affords substantial tax benefits to hydrocarbon firms, which only exacerbates the problem from the supply side. If supply-side incentives are adjusted to reflect a move toward alternative energy forms, reliance on hydrocarbons will be reduced.
A second alternative is to address the issue from the demand side — not by encouraging the use of substitutes such as alternative energy, but by encouraging greater efficiency in our use of hydrocarbons. One such system that has been proposed is the cap-and-trade system. This system places a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply — mainly by trading carbon credits (EPA, 2013). Producers of emissions who are going to exceed their cap will face penalties, or they can trade for overages from producers who are under the cap. Those carbon credits therefore have value, creating an incentive for polluters to reduce the amount of pollution they generate. According to the EPA, a cap-and-trade system already exists for acid rain-causing emissions and has been successful.
As a policy instrument, cap-and-trade requires the government to do two things. First, it must establish caps — setting emissions limits, penalties for violating those limits, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that penalties are imposed. Second, the government would need to set up a trading system for carbon credits, in which polluters could sell credits to those who choose to exceed their limits.
From a practical standpoint, the government would also need to determine which polluters would be subject to this system. This is where the matter becomes particularly complex for hydrocarbon emissions. While acid rain pollutants were almost always emitted at the industrial level, hydrocarbon pollution affects all levels of American society. Individual Americans waste hydrocarbons through driving, for example. Indeed, our cities are built on a model of hydrocarbon usage that will be difficult to change without physical reconstruction of our living environment. Thus, who is required to participate in the cap-and-trade system, what the permitted limits will be, and what the penalties will be are critical and highly contentious implementation issues.
Alternatives to a cap-and-trade system need to be explored. Such a system will be difficult to implement and will not actually solve the problem on its own. The other options for dealing with climate change deserve serious pursuit. We should work within the international framework to encourage all nations to curtail their carbon usage — without the participation of China and India, domestic efforts will accomplish relatively little. We also need to take steps to prepare the U.S. for a different climate. This will involve reconsidering how we design our cities, our agricultural system, our transportation infrastructure, and many other facets of American life. Right now, we have no real plan for this.
Perhaps we should develop one. We are severely constrained in our ability to address climate change — not just by domestic special interests, but by the American public itself and by foreign governments as well. Our best hope is to find ways to ensure that climate change falls somewhat short of utterly catastrophic.
Karl, T. & Trenberth, K. (2003). Modern global climate change. Science, Vol. 302, 1719–1721.
EPA. (2013). Cap and trade. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.