The US society shows contradictory attitudes and opinions towards any proposed climate policy. Oftentimes, this disparity is due to the possible impacts of the policy on commerce. Some argue against the implementation of the policy on the grounds that doing so would eventually upset the balance of economy. These are the same polarities which the most recent US climate policy, the Waxman- Markey Bill, is left to deal with.
The Waxman- Markey Bill is in response to the call of the scientific community and many environmentalist groups to tackle the issue of climate change on a national level. According to website of the 111th House of Congress, the proposal was introduced in the House of Congress on May 21, 2009. In June 2, 2009, it passed the House of Congress by a roll call vote, with 219 Ayes, 216 Nays, 3 Present Not Voting. (111th Congress, 2009-2010). Furthermore, the site states that the bill has four objectives (1) to create clean energy jobs, (2) achieve energy independence, (3) reduce global warming pollution, and (4) transition to a clean energy economy (111th Congress, 2009-2010).
The proposed climate policy (chiefly authored by Reps. Henry A. Waxman, D-California, and Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts) has been receiving a great deal of support from the Obama administration. According to a New York Times report written by Kirkland, Obama thanked the House for passing a bill in June, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). At its core, that bill would create an economy wide cap-and-trade program that ratchets down industrial carbon dioxide emissions over time by distributing a declining number of pollution permits to electric utilities and factories (Kirkland, 2010). The website of the 111th Congress states some of the proposals other names including American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, GREEN Act of 2009, Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods Act of 2009, and Safe Climate Act (111th Congress, 2009-2010). Furthermore, the website maintains that it received reviews from committees in congress such as the House Energy and Commerce, Foreign Affairs, House Financial Services, Education and Labor, Education and Labor (Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness), Science and Technology, Transportation and Infrastructure (and its subcommittees on Aviation , Highways and Transit, Railroads Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, Water Resources and Environment and Economic), Development (Public Buildings and Emergency Management), Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Ways and Means (111th Congress, 2009-2010).
Evidence of the Problem Why Does the US Need a Climate Policy
While there is yet to be a consensus towards the understanding of global warming, extensive research and tests have been made by state-run agencies and non-government organizations and they all have one conclusion the amount of carbon dioxide emission accelerates the warming of the earth and contributes significantly to the drastic changes in climates and weathers as we experience it today.
The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), an organization under the United States Department of Energy, released records in 2007 showing that the U.S. ranks in a number two position, second to China, among the top ten countries with the highest load of carbon emission. The data were based on measured carbon emissions from human activity, specifically from the burning of fossil fuels. These did not take into account other pollutant gases like methane. According to CDAIC reports, Since 1751 approximately 329 billion tons of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production (Boden, et. al., 2009).
The degree of carbon emission in the US is affected by four factors- consumption of electricity, consumption of coal, consumption of liquid fuels and consumption of natural gas. The behaviors of consumption may be graphed with slight curvature figure that is projected to move downwards after 2008 and in years 2010 and 2011, yet the amount of consumption remains to be high as observed from the carbon dioxide emissions amount data collected by the CDAIC based on per country consumption statistics in 2006. EIA reports that the carbon emissions trends in the U.S. have achieved a lower level in 2009. US Energy Information Administrations records attributed an estimated 6.3 decrease to carbon emissions from fossil fuels and an 11 fall in the emission due to the lowered degree of coal consumption (EIA, 2009, p.1). EIA maintains that despite the projected increase in carbon emission in 2010 and 2011 in the US, 2010 and 2011 carbon emission levels are lower than emissions in the years 1999 to 2008 (EIA, 2009, p.1). However, EIA cites that projected improvements in the US economy may fuel carbon emissions increase of 1.5 by 2010 and another 1.3 increase in 2011 due to increase in coal consumption, expansion of travel programs, and economic development (EIA, 2009).
II. Recent Developments
Some Policy Alternatives in the Past
In 2002, the US initiated the Clean Air Act policy that seeks to reduce the emissions of toxic gases in the air (i.e., methane, carbon dioxide, etc.). A JS Online report made by McIlheran states that Governor Doyle in Wisconsin required every resident within the state to buy a full quarter of all electricity from renewable sources by 2025 (McIlheran, 2010). Furthermore, another report, written by The Orlando Sentinel, of the same online newspaper states that there is a policy recently initiated by President Obama called the cash for clunkers- with the objective of replacing clunkers with more energy- efficient cars (The Orlando Sentinel, 2009). According to the report, the clunker policy awards the amount of 4,500 to every individual takes on initiatives to follow the policy. Another report, written by The Associated Press, fort he same online newspaper states that the House voted for a release of another 2B after the initial 1B has been consumed quickly (The Associated Press, 2009). Furthermore, according to Clemmitt, the US Environmental Protection Agency has been implementing policies to reduce the greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions as a response to the scientists theory that the GHG contribute to global warming (Clemmitt, 2009).
According to Clemmitt, the Waxman- Markey Bill has been amended resulting to the reduction of carbon permits auction from 100 percent to 85 percent give-away, as its sponsors made compromises in the efforts of getting votes (Clemmitt, 2009). The 111th Congress website says that currently, the bill is being discussed in the Senate (111th Congress, 2009-2010). According to official Cantwell website, Senator Maria Cantwell introduced in a US senate session in December 2009 the so-called Carbon Limits and Energy for American Renewal Act (CLEARA) (Cantwell, 2009), a proposal that drafted after the proposed Waxman- Markey policy. CLEARA is co-authored by Senator Maria Cantwell and Senator Susan Collins, along with support of three other republican senators from Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri. It was introduced by Senator Maria Cantwell. According to Senator Cantwell, the specific issues that this policy is meant to address include the reductions in the entry of carbon in US products, give incentives to individuals who would adopt greener lifestyle, reduce carbon emissions, and allows for a degree of US independence from highly consumed imported products like the oil from Iraq and toy-batteries from China (Cantwell, 2009). The policy is supported by different civic and non-government organizations such as the World Resources Institute, Architecture 2030, Post Carbon Institute, and many others. These groups show support through information dissemination campaigns to educate readers about the policy. As stated in the official website of the CLEARA policy, Beginning in 2012, the President sets the initial target amount of carbon from fossil fuels that can be emitted to the atmosphere without disrupting the economy, using a gradually declining cap. The concept is to gradually accelerate emission reductions. The level of carbon emissions remains at the level set by the President for the first three years. After that, the carbon cap increases by a quarter of a percentage point each year, from the previous year Carbon permit prices will be determined by the bidding process To minimize price volatility for consumers, fuel producers and investors in new energy technologies, a price collar governs carbon permit. (Cantwell, 2009)
III. Insights
The carbon emissions trends in the U.S. have achieved a lower level in 2009. According to the US Energy Information Administration, there is an estimated 6.3 decrease to carbon emissions from fossil fuels and an 11 fall in the emission due to the lowered degree of coal consumption (EIA, 2009, p.1). EIA also states that despite the projected increase in carbon emission in 2010 and 2011 in the US, as projected by EIA, 2010 and 2011 carbon emission levels are still lower than emissions in the years 1999 to 2008 (EIA, 2009). According to JS Online report, A California-Massachusetts team of legislators is pushing expensive regulations on carbon emissions that would be paid for by the industries and consumers of the Midwest Cap-and-tax isnt yet the law of the land, but carbon emissions fell 6 this year (Sensenbrenner, 2009). Based on the data provided by the EIA, it seems rather hard to say to what extent does the policy has influenced the leveling down of carbon emissions in the country since other factors exist that also played significant role in the reduction of carbon emissions. Nevertheless, I share with the view that the climate policy is better than nothing at all. It is good that it reinforces strict policies that would surely cut down on carbon emissions. It is just needs to clarify the vagueness and ambiguities inherent in the policy itself to avoid economic risks and other consequences that could happen as its side impacts. T must be noted that the issue on climate policy is not exclusive from other major issues such as sustainability and development, which are not necessarily confined within the sphere of environmental science. Any climate policy that attempts to provide both short-term and long-term solutions need to have the holistic approach to address such other issues as well.
Secondly, one of the anticipated outcomes of the climate policy is that it would generate jobs once developments of renewable sources of energy are started. According to Clemmitt, some critics say that this would be very expensive (Clemmitt, 2009). Yet arguably, it is something that we can try especially if in the end we can recoup the financial investments that we make. It may not be directly in financial terms but consider how much we can do for the environment as well, and these are all worth pursuing the policy.
According to Clemmitt, the policy necessarily controls the products that enter the US markets in the course of monitoring the amounts of carbon dioxide that enters the US markets (Clemmitt, 2009) and this I believe is what is striking about the policy. According to the Cantwell website, the CLEARA imposes a definite floor price as far as securing a carbon permit is concerned. In my view, this policy will affect the US economy because it reinforces strict controls on some of the mostly needed commodities in present-day US. The authors of the policy have, of course, anticipated this issue and thus, have incorporated certain conditions wherein lifting of this control is justifiable. For instance, there is a provision that justifies the lift of control in the event that the world position as a powerful nation is undermined. To this, we can argue that while the policy provides for conditions that will allow the lifting of control on acceptable grounds, it will be very hard to define whether a particular situation validly qualifies. The criteria that set for the validations have yet to be defined.
Thirdly, the Cantwell website states that the policy advances the idea of auctioning carbon permits to producers and importers of coal, natural gas and oil (Cantwell, 2009). Cantwell maintains that the revenues to be collected are from producers and importers of the three commodities and never from the power plants that handle the actual coal burning process (Cantwell, 2009). While we cannot deny the fact that this provision of the bill can control the production amount of carbon-based products, the policy seems to lack measures that would ensure realization of objective on the level of manufacture despite that a substantial amount of emissions actually comes from them. The plants that burn the coal will be provided much of a leeway as far as the law is concerned. It would be better if the policy will also cover for these firms to ensure total control of emission amount and to ensure that they would follow strictly to environmental policies.
Another aspect that we need to look at is the conjecture, according to Clemmitt, that giant carbon-manufacturing firms may end up controlling the prices, giving mush of the price burden to the low-income class (Clemitt, 2009). To prevent this, we need to set definite parameters within the policy that will prevent the firms from doing so.
Lastly, according to Larsen and Bradburry, the policy also increases the amount of household disposable income because it distributes 75 of the carbon permits revenues to qualifying household equally (qualifying means being residents of the US), while the other 25 of the revenues goes to CLEARA Trust Fund that will provide the funding for additional greenhouse gas emissions reductions, low-carbon energy investment, climate change adaptation, and related regional economic adjustment projects, (Larsen and Bradburry, 2010). There is an important economic issue on this, that is, the idea that the increase in household disposable income may risk national savings in the long run as, just like what Auerbach states, increase in national savings can encourage additional spending (Auerbach, 2002).
The huge debates in climate change have left the US, and practically people everywhere in the world, wondering what to do next to prevent or offset the negative impacts of climate change in our present-day environmental scenario. I believe that I can influence the policy-making process by initiating or joining information campaigns and to be vigilant with whatever decisions the senate or the government may have on the issue.
Wiki
The issue of climate change, specifically, its felt direct impact manifested by the phenomenon of global warming, is a very complex issue. I chose this research topic because of it high relevance to the issues that we need to urgently deal with today. Opinions towards any climate policy are always divided. For one, environmentalists display a rather vigilant attitude towards the possibility of a climate policy being cloaked as environment-friendly whereas it actually benefits businesses more than it does the environment. On the other hand, a negative reaction is often displayed by businessmen towards a policy they consider would necessarily implicate negative impacts on the conduct of business and thus, possibly disrupt and lead to an eventual regression of the economy.
The climate policy in the Waxman- Markey Bill and now embedded in the CLEARA sounds like a good solution to resolve climate issues as it is also supposed to benefit spheres outside of the parameters of the environmental such as economic and socio-political. But as we can see now, there are huge changes from the original drafts of the bill such as in the reduction of carbon permits to be auctioned, from 100 to mere 15 as stated by Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) Director Mike Tidwell (Clemmitt, 2009).
The question is, Are the inclusions in the proposed policy clear and fool-proof enough to handle the economic and socio-political consequences of the policy.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment