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