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
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
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
-Here is the link to the report, enjoy!
http://esa.org/biofuelsreports/files/ESA%20Biofuels%20Report_VH%20Dale%20et%20al.pdf
- Mr. Carter
Thursday, February 11, 2010
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
* 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
Thursday, February 4, 2010
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
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
-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
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
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
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.
-Michael Silvestre
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
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)