Final answer:
The commonality between command-and-control regulation and market-oriented tools in industrial regulation and climate change is that both aim to reduce pollution, but they differ in flexibility, efficiency, and the ability to incentivize ongoing environmental improvements.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question concerns the comparison of two policy approaches toward industrial regulation and climate change: command-and-control regulation versus market-oriented tools. Command-and-control regulation is criticized for being inflexible and inefficient as it often requires blanket standards and technology mandates for all firms, regardless of their individual circumstances or the costs they face. Such regulations do not incentivize further pollution abatement once standards are met. In contrast, market-oriented tools could provide differentiated incentives that encourage firms to innovate and reduce emissions, possibly leading to more significant environmental benefits at lower costs.
Regarding the two approaches outlined for reducing CO2 emissions from manufacturing industries in the U.S.—mandating predetermined technologies versus subsidizing cleaner technologies—the former is an example of command-and-control policy. It dictates the specific technology firms must use, whereas the latter represents a market-oriented approach by incentivizing the adoption of cleaner technologies through subsidies.