$1 billion turned to ash: Aviation loses big on Iceland volcano cloud

This is a little random, but my friend was unable to travel to a destination in Europe due to this huge Ash Cloud! I just thought it was interesting to hear how much money airlines are losing due to this disaster and see how global warming is causing havoc all over the world. This will cost American airline companies about $65million of dollars in revenue!!!

- Mr. Carter

Breaking News! Senator Graham's Departure from Climate Bill

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/26/climate.change.bill.postponed/index.html?hpt=T1

Breaking News! Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina just announced that he is walking away from negotiations on a "tri-partisan" climate bill in the Senate. Senator Graham was the only major Republican working on the climate bill and his angry departure gravely endangers the immediate fate of the bill, which is supposed to be unveiled to the public tomorrow. Senator Graham left after expressing his displeasure towards the Democrats immigration reform measures.

What is going to happen next? For the sake of the environment, I hope Senator Graham quickly renews his work on the climate bill. This is exactly the kind of partisan squabbling that President Obama has cautioned against. Politicians from both parties need to resolve their differences in a timely manner or else much legislation could be lost. And, with respect to the environment, time is of the essence.

-Alex Kwong

Happy Earth Day!

We hope you had a great Earth Day. Here at Oxy we celebrated with festivities in the quad: a demostration of the new zip cars coming to campus next year, a local food cook-off competition, a booth with a local LA farmer, even a a booth with info from our blog group!
It is also a great time to evaluate energy and environmental policies in Washington.
In a great example of how we can connect with government officials in an exchange of ideas and concerns, the Washington Post hosted Energy Secretary Steven Chu for an online question and answer session. The question of funding for fuel cell research and production was raised. Last year Chu cut funding for fuel cell production for cars because there is a serious problem with transportation and storage of hydrogen. A new hope has arisen for hydrogen energy use in industrial settings. See this Economist article for more info on how a California company, Bloom Energy, has installed hydrogen fuel boxes at major company campuses in the state such as Google and Wal-Mart.

News in California: Schwarzenegger's 2006 bill Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) may face drawbacks in the fall if a proposition makes it on the 2010 ballot to undo the measures until California unemployment falls to 5%. Texas oil money is helping fund the effort. Keep an eye out for this in the fall.

Obama wants to wish you a happy Earth Day!

-Morgan

JAY SHIMSHACK-"SCHOOL BUSES, DIESEL EMISSIONS, AND RESPIRATORY HEALTH"

This past week the Oxy economics department brought Jay Shimshack to campus to discuss his paper entitled "School Buses, Diesel Emissions, and Respiratory Health." The main focus of his paper was to look at local air pollution given off my diesel run school buses and examine the health effects when the number of buses were reduced. His approach to this question was to perform a study. Shimshack looked at counties in Washington state that implemented the Clean School Bus Program, which retrofitted busses with new technologies in order to reduce the amount of diesel fumes that were emitted. He then matched bus details with health data in the same area to determine what the actual effects on health were. He compared data between counties that were similar other than the fact that some initiated the clean bus program while some didn't. Ultimately, the data revealed that retrofitting the buses and limiting the emissions did indeed reduce the number of health problems. During the presentation, I asked him if his results had influenced other counties to implement these programs. I though that with such strong data, there should be no reason that these programs are not becoming more widespread. Shimshack said that this would be his goal, change has not yet been seen primarily because his paper has not yet been published (it is currently sitting in the offices of many prestigious economic journals). Hopefully though, sooner rather than later we can use these results to implement policy to require the retrofitting of buses all over the country.

--Sara McKnight

Controversies of Off Shore Drilling

Obama's opening off off shore drilling sites in parts of Alaska, Virginia, and other sites in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic has sparked a negative reaction from many environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace:

But some environmentalists have made compelling arguments that maybe offshore drilling--while not necessarily the best answer-- is not as harmful as many assume. In his Washington Post article, Eric Smith argues that much of the resistance to offshore drilling arises from the fear of oil spills, but technology has improved vastly since the Santa Barbara spill of 1969 that galvanized opposition to this method of oil extraction, greatly reducing the risk of oil spills from offshore platforms. He contends that importing oil from foreign countries contributes more to pollution that causes global warming.

But there is no guarantee that the oil extracted off U.S. shores will not be exported elsewhere, adding to our carbon footprint, and the supplies this opening can provide will not meet U.S. oil demand. And, of course, one can argue that this is only a stop-gap measure that will slow investment in alternative energy sources that we really need.

I was surprised to learn that offshore drilling might not be the demon we always automatically assume it is, but despite its possible benefits compared to importing oil from foreign countries, I would like to see more progressive measures to fulfill America's energy needs and, more importantly (but also more difficult), to reduce our consumption of energy.

-Morgan

Drilling Frontiers Opened

Earlier this week President Obama released a statement regarding the nation's energy needs .(Thanks Alex K for finding this).He announced the plan to expand offshore drilling, or as he more pleasantly put it, "offshore oil and gas exploration." To justify this action, he pointed toward the need for continued economic growth and the expansion of employment opportunities. Given the current financial situation, I found that this statement would gain the support of Americans who are more concerned with employment their economic well-being over their carbon footprint.

Although it involves the lifting of decade old bans on offshore drilling, his proposal falls in between the two poles of economic expansion and environmental protection. His argument against not opening all areas to offshore drilling is that our large percentage of consumption would not be matched by our potential harvesting of oil. His argument against the view that no new drilling areas should be opened appears less factual. He claims it is "part of a broader strategy" to move towards cleaner native energy. How exactly does expanding drilling zones push the nation towards adapting environmentally friendly fuels? I look forward to seeing this energy plan currently under construction in the Senate.

Opposing opinions have already been made by politicians, including the Democrat's leading candidates for Senate. Ken Lewis argued drilling would only divert attention from developing cleaner energy. Other democrats such as former state secretary Cal Cunningham are hesistant about drilling but open to seeing how far this plan takes us. In the meantime drill, baby, drill.

-Steph F

Health Care Signed... Cap and Trade Next?

Sara posed a great question in her last post asking what has happened to all the talks about Cap and Trade. Just last week an article in the New York Times was published which addressed her question. It was titled "Tracing the Demise of Cap and Trade." This was a fitting tittle because the article then went into detail about how the phrase "cap and trade" has been faced with such strong opposition that Obama has stopped using it all together sine the passage of the energy bill in the House last June. Many opponents of the bill, like members of the Tea Party refer to it as "cap and tax." According to the Times the Senate is slowly attempting to work out the kinks and quirks in the bill to give incentives to large oil companies and power plants to adopt its policies.
Also mentioned in the article is that the reason the phrase cap and trade has appeared to die is a result of the crash on Wall Street, big industry opposition, and the current poor economy of the country. But with health care out of the way some appear optimistic that energy could be next up on the list for Congress. Two senators, Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins have proposed a new bill with the phrase "cap and dividend," in which the money gained by the bill be given back to consumers to assist in their higher monthly energy costs. Accoring to the article the the revision of teh bill could come as soon as April but who know what will happen when it comes around for the vote. Check out the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26climate.html?scp=1&sq=energy%20cap%20and%20trade&st=cse

I personally believe the Senate should put this bill on their priority list because its still a huge issue, which has to be dealt with sooner or later. Plus it would also help America relieve itself of its oil depenedency.
Another short article I found mentioned the a new policy in which the EPA is attempting put in place, which would require industries to report their methane emmissions also instead of only CO2 emmissions. Methane emmissions trap up to 20 times more heat than CO2 and are a worst threat to gloabal warming than CO2. This is a new fact for me and I find it to be alaring that this hasn't been done or brought up earlier. It's a short easy read. Check it out : http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/science/earth/24epa.html?ref=energy-environment

-Alexander Balgobin

What's going on with cap-and-trade?!?

In the wake of the healthcare passage and the debate that preceded, cap-and-trade has seemingly been put on the back burner. In researching something to discuss for this week's post, I realized there was not much recent news on the issue. The New York times website on cap-and-trade that I referenced in my first post hasn't been updated since February 3. The LA Times has no recent articles on the issue other than mere mentions of the bill in articles pertaining to healthcare or other policies on the agenda. I guess my big question is, where is all the info about cap-and-trade? Now that healthcare is out of the way, will we see more action taken on cap-and-trade or more efforts to fight or push the bill? Apparently, Lindsey Graham, senator of South Carolina voiced a similar sentiment, saying that "cap-and-trade is dead. His sentiment focuses on the idea that cap-and-trade as it currently stands needs to be changed in order to be seriously considered and effective. Darren Samuelsohn addressed this issue in his article "Graham's Cap-And-Trade Pronouncement Reframes Hill Debate," voicing his opinion that cap-and-trade is still alive and kicking. He states that what Graham ultimately meant was that cap-and-trade in its current form is dead. He is still in favor of "putting a price on carbon emissions." He hopes to take a more economic perspective on the issue, creating incentives for businesses and refraining from "devastat[ing] the economy." Graham wants the bill not only to improve the environment, but also create jobs, thereby stimulating the economy and increasing our sustainability.

My thoughts: I think that this is a very interesting concept. As the article says, Graham is reframing the issue and approaching it from a different standpoint. I think that this could help curb the opposition that the cap-and-trade bill is currently facing by focusing on the economic benefits. Because of the current state of our economy, I believe most of the American public will be hopeful about bills that suggest economic prosperity for our future. If it's going to create more jobs, I think more people will hop on board.

--Sara McKnight

Offshore Wind

Offshore drilling was a controversial topic during the 2008 Presidential Election and raised questions about whether we should take risky action in order to lower the costs of oil; however, I bet you haven't heard about the harvesting of offshore wind. Check out this New York Times article about a new energy alternative emerging on the Danish coast.

Michael

The Lieberman-Graham-Kerry Climate Bill Exposed! Sort of!

In the midst of the huge health care debacle going on this week, Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced an outline to the Climate Bill on Wednesday. Although Congress has not explicitly stated what the outline will address, several unidentified sources (via The New York Times) have come out saying the bill plans on curbing greenhouse gas emissions to pre-2005 levels by 2020 and regulating power plants by 2012. The bill also attempts to reach out to industry groups by making the bill only applicable to factories and plants that emit more than 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases per year.

Personally, this proposed outline is somewhat bittersweet. Since this bill was a "bipartisan" effort--tri-partisan, with respect to Lieberman's status as an Independent--the overall content is definitely more moderate that I was hoping. The fact that the climate bill is so considerate to the industries engaging in this pollution is disconcerting. However, the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill seems to have two benefits to the Senate's Climate Bill. Firstly, as a bipartisan bill written by three of the more well-known members of the Senate, this bill has a more realistic chance of getting passed. This bill will appease more members in Congress than if it was a specifically liberal effort. Secondly, this bill retains the idea of a cap on carbon emissions. Which, despite the limited application the Senators gave the bill, it will still have some effect on our carbon footprint.

Overall the bill doesn't seem to achieve anything radical, which isn't surprising. Fortunately, the bill seems like it will still be a progressive piece of legislation that will help the United States get closer to becoming a cleaner, less polluted nation.

Michael

Transit

This weekend, on March 20th, Occidental College and UEPI have helped to organize the Los Angeles Street Summit at the LA Trade Tech. This convention will provide the city and its residents with a hands-on opportunity to both learn about and consider issues of environmentally friendly transit within Los Angeles.

The fact is, Los Angeles is currently dominated by the motorist and the cityscape is therefore defined by its highways and plagued with seemingly endless sprawl. Contrary to what you might believe, however, these existing problems were no accident. In fact, city planners actually established Los Angeles as the car-centric city they believed would one day provide an example for future modernist designs. Instead, LA has only been ridiculed.

Now more than ever, it is important that Los Angeles begin to examine different ways in which its transit needs are met because the current motorist model is clearly not sustainable. But, exactly WHAT CAN WE DO?

Personally, I think that the city must proactively invest in alternative forms of transportation. For one, this will require the construction of new light rail lines, which operate on electricity and are arguably more efficient than subways. In addition, new bike paths must be dedicated along busy city streets and larger areas of sidewalk must be built for the pedestrian.

Locality within Los Angeles is not the only issue though. Nowadays, with globalization, etc. I believe that individuals have been spoiled and have grown accustomed to a mobile mindset. But before I go any further, let me just say that this is a good thing. We are in the 21st century and I do not believe that anyone should feel anchored to any one locale. I believe that it is important for us to get out, to explore, and to see new cultures and people. Therefore, it is vital that new long-distance transit models must be sought out.

Already, aggressive international efforts have been pioneered in China, Germany, Japan on magnetic levitation trains. These trains can boast speeds past 300 mph and will certainly help to define the way in which people travel in the future. This past summer, I was actually able to ride a "maglev" train in Shanghai that zipped along at these outrageous land-speeds and have to tell you, it was awesome. Here is a link to a very brief video that demonstrates just how fast the train is.



Hope for Los Angeles is not lost. I, myself, used to believe that LA is beyond repair. However, if planners begin to encourage this innovative changes, I believe that the feel for this city can be rigorously transformed for the better. As maturing adults, it is our job to take ownership of this responsibility because we will be the decision makers soon enough.


-Alex Kwong

Skimming through an article from the Los Angeles Times titled “Saving the Amazon may be the most cost-effective way to cut greenhouse gas emissions” that Sara shared with the group, I found it relevant and intriguing enough to write this week’s blog on it. As absorbing as it was, I admit I was sucked in by “omg! yahoo” to check out “What were they thinking?!” instead of reading and analyzing the article. I scrolled through the page to get to this week’s fashion atrocities to find a post that not only dealt with the environment, but also was connected to a reading on public policy we were assigned. The album was titled “Green Glam” (http://omg.yahoo.com/photos/green-glam/3663) and was composed of photographs taken at Global Green USA’s Oscar pre-party.

Although the album’s text was focused on who wore what, I wanted to know more about the organization behind the event and went to their website (http://www.globalgreen.org/) Well played, yahoo, well played. I was overwhelmed by the variety of publications on the site and found my way to the article on the event featured on yahoo. (http://www.globalgreen.org/events/101) Proceeds from the event will aid the organization’s green building initiatives, particularly building eco-friendly and inexpensive houses and schools.

Their Greening Affordable Housing Initiative works to aid in the development of green communities, which reduces the cost of energy bills while protecting the environment, through several tactics that can be seen on their website. (http://www.globalgreen.org/greenurbanism/affordablehousing/learnmore/) Next, I read up on the benefits of green schooling (http://www.globalgreen.org/greenurbanism/schools/). Global Green argues that green schools will protect the health of staff and students, increase performance of students, reduce costs of operation, and can display the important of eco-friendly buildings to students.

I plan to read more of their proposals, but in the interest of not turning this blog post into a book-sized narrative, I’ll cut to what held the most significance to me. This would be the ability of the media to shape public opinion. Internet surfers can happen upon the album of photos from the Oscar pre-party, as I did, and see famous people in support of an organization. This brings green issues to the public, bringing it closer to landing a high space on the public agenda.

Here's a video of interviews during the event:

-Steph Fitzgerald

What's Wrong with Cap-and-Trade?

There are two sides to every argument, and cap-and-trade is no exception. While, as Morgan pointed out, there are many benefits to cap-and-trade, many people also find flaws in the proposal.

Check out this video--It's kind of long but worth watching! (Thanks to Morgan for finding it!!!!)

http://www.vimeo.com/7908590

In this video Annie Leonard makes three claims about the problems of cap-and-trade:

1) She believes that instead of giving away the permits we should sell them and then use the money to further help the solution. Her suggestions include "using the money to build a a clean energy economy," give money back to citizens to help with the transition to a greener economy, and also giving money to those who are "most harmed by climate change" or as she calls it "paying our ecological debt.

2) She also discusses a clause in the proposal that refers to offsetting, which basically means that when you cut back within the cap, someone else can pollute more while still being able to stay under the cap. Her problem, however, is that it is very hard to prove actual offsetting occurs and that many firms are cheating, claiming to have cut back when they really haven't.

3) Leonard also sees cap-and-trade as a distraction. Many people are so convinced that it is an effective solution that they don't look past it and cut back on new research. She describes it as "false progress," meaning that many people think that we are cutting back on our emission, but in actuality we are actually just "distracted" from the growing problem.

Leonard also complains that the primarily goal and eventual outcome of this proposal is to protect businesses. She believes that instead we should be looking at policy that includes "solid caps, strong laws, citizen action, and carbon fees."

My thoughts: Annie Leonard makes a lot of really interesting points, however I am not 100% convinced. This is mostly because I don't have a reason to believe her. She never refers to any actual data, While she has a good reputation (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1841778_1841781_1841805,00.html), I really wish that she talked more about her sources and why we should believe what she says. Ultimately though, I think her main point is that she likes what of what cap-and=trade is trying to accomplish, but she finds major flaws in the proposal as is. All legislation is going to have flaws though. There is no such thing as a "perfect bill." While I have not yet studied the bill myself, I am definitely one for implementing solutions even if they are imperfect. This is definitely a problem that we need to start cutting back on, but we are wasting time going back and forth on the bills and editing and revising over and over again. I don't pretend to be an expert on the cap-and-trade or the fine details of the bill, but I really do believe that we need to start doing more. If we can find evidence that cap-and-trade will reduce emissions at a relatively low price to Americans and the rest of the world, I believe it is something that we should go and ahead and implement. Annie believes that cap-and-trade will cost more money to Americans, and this is definitely something I plan to do some research on for future blogs.

This is only one person's opinion on cap-and-trade and I plan to post some more opinions next week. (I don't want this entry to get too long!!!) Look for more about the CONS of cap-and-trade in future blogs as I gain more information and understand what cap-and-trade really is and the outcomes it can produce.

--Sara McKnight

A New Line of Thought

Bonjour! Mr. Carter here to share some thoughts. In my last post I mentioned that I was interested in gaining more knowledge about alternative energy sources. Today I stumbled upon a report by three scientists titled, “Biofuels: Implications for Land Use and Biodiversity”, that truly made me reflect on how the U.S. should go about making policy regarding new energy sources. There are other forms of fuel out there, the problem is figuring out the best way to produce them so that our country can enjoy the economic and social benefits of doing so. The report argues that “In order to balance increasing demands on land for urban, industrial and agricultural use, policies need to incorporate socioeconomic and ecological principles in view of current and past land uses.” It then goes on to look at a number of options and their likely land- use benefits. The report was very intriguing in the fact that it made me look at biofuel production in a new light. Before, when thinking about the complications of energy policymaking I thought only of the financial concern. Producing biofuels is expensive, however, it is not the only difficult element in creating policy concerning energy; one must also look at the potential adverse effects of producing these necessary fuels on our ecosystem. In truth, I have never really thought about energy policy in this way, but as the report states, it is necessary to acknowledge this issue and now I see why. While producing these fuels will certainly benefit our nation, if production only furthers the decay of our precious environment it is not sensible. We must find ways in which to produce biofuels while preserving the planet. Anyhow, this report helped me tremendously, to better understand the complexities of energy policymaking. I recommend reading this report, as it will increase your awareness on biofuels and the environmental impacts of producing them. Hope it’s as interesting for you as it was for me!


-Here is the link to the report, enjoy!


http://esa.org/biofuelsreports/files/ESA%20Biofuels%20Report_VH%20Dale%20et%20al.pdf

- Mr. Carter

The Strengths of Cap and Trade

This week we will examine some of the strengths of the implementation of a cap and trade system.
* A cap and trade system is economically efficient. Unlike a government mandate to clean up industry or a tax leveled at all companies, cap and trade can have the same effect of forcing cleanup but gives companies a choice: either clean up or pay. This is more efficient than leveling the same standards at all polluters because companies who have the ability to clean up without too much cost can do so; the companies that would suffer greatly from changing their practices can choose to pay for pollution permits and sustain their levels of pollution. In the language of Econ 101, the cap and trade system basically makes the right to pollute a scarce resource because there are a limited number of permits based on the cap. The system of allocation of this scarce resource gives companies a choice and this is more efficient than demanding the same behavior of all companies.

* Companies are also given the choice on how to clean up. Will they produce less? Invent a new clean technology? Import technology to improve their system? Use different chemicals? The company has the freedom to decide the methods by which they reduce their pollution should they choose to do so. (For more on this see this Washington Post article )

* This is a business-minded solution. Cap and trade creates a market and allows businesses to interact as they are accustomed to doing. Many companies, from Nike to General Motors have endorsed the American Clean Energy & Security Act of 2009. This is indicative of the fact that cap and trade is a realistic method for companies to adopt.

* Cap and trade is not a short-term, one-time fix like a simple emissions cap or enforcing the cleanup of a river. The system will keep reducing pollution by lowering the emissions cap (reducing the number of permits that can be traded) over time. Therefore the system can fluctuate if necessary and has the capacity to continue to improve environmental quality.

Some who oppose the cap and trade system worry that putting a price on pollution and therefore the environment is a slippery slope (See Greenpeace's argument against cap and trade.) I think compromises must be made. Pollution can be treated as a normal good and though many of us consider the environment priceless, realistically no government, person, company, or organization is willing to spend infinite funds on it, so imposing a price tag may make some sense.
Others fear that cap and trade will cause energy costs to increase and lead to job loss. That's why some labor groups oppose the Clean Energy and Security Act. I'll let our bloggers next week delve into this issue further, but in defense of the measure I must argue that if some businesses suffer-- and therefore jobs disappear-- it may be necessary. America is already behind many other countries that have invested in producing more efficient cars, for example. By trying to salvage our dying industries instead of investing in up-and-coming, more environmentally friendly ones, we only shoot ourselves in the foot. Cap and trade will likely increase energy costs and may lead to job losses in dirty industries. But this is a short-term price America should pay to mitigate the long-term costs of climate change, and these problems may even lead to positive consequences like the fortification of clean jobs and the reduction of energy use.

One revision to the current cap and trade proposal I must advocate is to charge companies for the permits. Maybe the reason so many companies endorse the 2009 bill is because most of the permits would be given away at no cost to companies. Polluters should pay for the damage they afflict on the environment and people.

Overall cap and trade is a simple, business-minded, realistic solution with the potential for very important improvements in environmental pollution. It should be taken seriously. Though the idea of organizing such a scheme may seem daunting, it has been implemented in the European Union, so we know it can be done. Not only that, but dealing with cap and trade is a whole lot easier than dealing with the far-reaching and profound problems that may assault us if we don't act quickly with measures like this one.

-Morgan Flake

Alex Balgobin Intro

I'm currently a student at Occidental College and like Carter have also joined the Energy Cap and Trade group. I want to expand my knowledge on the global issues relating to climate change and would like to share any new knowledge I gain with the followers of this blog. The United States government finally adressed the problem of global warmning when Congress passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act in the summer of 2009. Unfortunately as we have learned in Professor Heldman's class this is only the first step to combating climate change, the way in which this law is applied and enforced will be the true test of our government.
In my opinion the issue of global warming shouldn't just be placed on the government, we as individuals can begin approaching this problem starting right in our dorm rooms and on campus. As Stephanie said we leave on our laptops all the time and dont notice how much energy we are wasting. On good example of energy saving is seen on my dorm hall's floor. We turn off all hallway, common room, and computer room lights when not in use. More simple initiates like this should be taken before we criticize our government.

-Alexander Balgobin

Turning a Blind Eye to Our Planet's Future

Hey readers! I’m Steph and I’m a first-year with an interest in economic policy. When environmental issues are brought up through the media, I think to myself, “Well of course I’m green! I recycle, I turn off the faucet when I brush my teeth, and I turn off the lights when I leave a room. But then again, I also take 15 minute showers, have my laptop open for at least 16 hours a day, and quickly change the channel when Noah Wyle starts discussing the issue of drowning polar bears. Reaching for the remote doesn’t replace the melted ice caps or help animals dislocated by mankind’s pollution. Like many others, I choose to ignore the unpleasant signs of the devastations our actions are causing. This ignorance is widespread because it’s convenient. It’s convenient to not bother learning about environmental issues and it’s convenient to not feel badly when you do un-green things. I decided to join this group and blog about environmental issues so that, being educated about what’s going on, am obligated to make better decisions regarding the future of the planet.

-Stephanie Fitzgerald

Government and the future of the Environment

Hello, my name is Carter Norfleet. I am a proud member of the Cap-and-Trade Brigade and currently a second year politics major at Occidental College. I joined this group because I am incredibly interested in gaining more knowledge on a very key issue facing our nations policymakers - the issue of our environment. As the world and its natural resources continue to decay, I am concerned about what our government is currently doing to help preserve this precious planet we are blessed to call home. I am particularly intrigued by alternative energy sources. I want to, in a way, see into the future. I want to know what kind of fuels our future cars will be running on. I want to learn more about solar panels and the role they will play in our society in the coming years.

The purpose of my blog will be to explore these issues as well as many other governmental and environmental concerns that will arise over the semester. Since I am no expert on any of this - as many Americans are not, my blog will be a way for me to start to, as Alex said -form a better awareness of the issues, so that by the end of the semester I might have begun to form my own opinions on the subject matter.

-Carter Norfleet a.k.a. Mr. Carter

What is Cap-and-Trade?

My name is Sara and I'm a sophomore Econ major. Not surprisingly, it was in one of my Econ classes that I first learned about the cap-and-trade policy and what it hoped to accomplish. The reality behind cap-and-trade is that it is a market based solution to our current environmental crisis. The policy involves putting a "cap,"or a limit, on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Pollution permits allowing for a certain amount of pollution are then distributed to firms who can use or "trade" their permits. This allows firms that can easily and cheaply cut back on their emissions to trade their permits to companies where it is much more difficult. This connects to economics because ultimately a market will develop for these permits in which those who value the permits at the highest price will get them while those who value it less will be able to sell their permits. Many believe this system will be effective because it allows the US to continue production, while still cutting back on emissions. According to the New York Times "cap and trade" overview, the original cap-and-trade bills hoped to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 83% in 2050. Furthermore, some economists believe that this is "the lowest-cost solution to a global pollution problem" and will be more effective that taxing polluters (New York Times). This bill has already been passed in the House but has not yet been approved by the Senate. One of the biggest debates surrounding the bill is how the permits would be distributed to the companies (New York Times). Some are in favor of selling the permits while others propose just giving them away. While this issue has not yet been resolved, it is one that we will hopefully be able to monitor throughout our blog.

Most of this information comes from: "Cap and Trade News" on the New York Times website

Feel free to check out the link to learn more about the policy. Any comments and corrections on what I've said are welcome as well. One of the reasons I decided to join this blog was to learn more about cap-and-trade and other environmental policies that are in the works, so don't hesitate to help me out!

Sara McKnight

The Fluorescent Light Bulb in My Brain That Finally Lit

I'm ashamed to say this, but up until college I've been the least green person I know. Throughout high school I drove my Toyota Pickup to the grocery store(it was half a mile away), I treated the sinks in my house like fountains, and left the television on for hours on end. The finite supply of energy and melting ice caps meant nothing to me. I don't exactly know when, but sometime this summer I decided I wanted to be more like this and less like this. As I slowly try to put my carbon-induced lifestyle to rest, I find myself becoming more fascinated by the environment and, more specifically, how I can do my part in fighting the inevitable concerns of global warming and the world's diminishing energy supply. Through my inquiries, I've realized how the government holds such a significant role in these crises and I've inadvertently become fascinated by government policy.

I chose to be in this group because I hope to get a better understanding of government and it's relationship with the environment. While the government has a relatively large scope over our lives, the environment has the potential to have a large scope over the government (as well as our lives). Through environmental policy, issues such as employment and health care can also be addressed. In this blog I want to observe how politician's and media address global warming and come to some conclusion as to how important the environment is on Capitol Hill as well as in the rest of the country.

-Michael Silvestre

Alex Kwong Intro

Hey all, my name is Alexander (Alex) Kwong and, like Morgan, I am also an Urban Environmental Politics major. Though I am still new to the department and its curriculum, I find that I am interested in alternative energy sources and their meaningful application to our current society. For instance, last year, I studied algae biofuels and learned that crude oil makes up roughly 50% of algae's weight. Imagine! Algae is dismissed as pond-scum, as slimy goo. But, what if scientists could find a way to efficiently extract their oil content? Some analysts predict that they could lower the cost of gasoline to under $20 a barrel.

But as I've learned, society cannot wait on any one technological fix, like algae biofuels, to save the planet. Instead, I think that it is important for people to become aware that environmental change requires incremental steps and the collaboration of many different people and interests.

So here we are. A group of "green" minded college kids, if you will, trying to gain that awareness for ourselves.

Welcome to our blog!

As part of Professor Heldman's Politics 101 class at Occidental College this spring semester, we are addressing the most critical current issues facing Washington DC policymakers, and we chose to tackle the topic of the current debate over policy involving climate change, the environment, and the possible cap and trade system.

As and Urban and Environmental Policy major, I am interested in numerous environmental issues, but I think that right now it really comes down to the looming threat of climate change. As some Americans balk at the mere possibility of the existence of global warming and policymakers stall in the movement to enact policy that can deal with this problem, the atmosphere is slowly evolving and causing serious changes in the world around us. I think the purpose of this blog is to disseminate information about the issue and possible solutions, discuss the policies currently in debate and those that have been passed, and expose any new developments so that we can get a good grasp on this issue. Our group also hopes to put together a final project involving what we've worked on in our blog.

If you are one of the many people who still question global warming and the need for all of this hullaballoo, check out the following videos. The first is a documentary on "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It will likely reinforce doubts in those who question the existence of this phenomenon or even convert you into a non-believer.




The second video is a critical examination of the first, exposing the misleading data and unsavory spin techniques the producers of the first video used to convince people that global warming doesn't exist.



I have been thoroughly convinced that global warming is a serious threat and a scientific fact and I hope that others feel as strongly so that we can together create a stronger movement and pressure our government to enact legislation that we need. But whatever your beliefs one global warming, I hope you take away from these videos the message that there is a powerful ideological and economic machine behind anti-global warming propaganda and we need to take all of the information to which we are exposed with a grain of salt.
-Morgan Flake