 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Shayye
Science Officer
| Joined: | Fri Feb 27th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 14 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 15th, 2009 06:06 am |
|
The world must stay focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of economic factors. There has to be a plan with teeth in it, with aggressive incentives to dramatically curb the heat trap the world is currently feeding at alarming levels.
President Obama advocates what has become known as a "cap-and-trade" mechanism for reducing emissions. The premise is to set goals for reduction of emissions and establish a process where polluters would have to obtain permits to emit greenhouse gases. The president's idea is to auction off those permits, with sights on raising up to $646 billion by 2019. That money would go toward offsetting higher energy costs or toward the development of alternative sources of energy. Obama has shown some pragmatism on the issue, vowing to work with business groups where needed, and an administration official said Wednesday there might a willingness to delay auctioning off all the permits.
The president would like to reduce the 2005 level of emissions by 80 percent by 2050. The Obama administration does not plan to offer a specific bill to implement the plan, apparently content to rely on legislative efforts that are already in the works. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., have been most notably active in drawing up legislation. Some of the goals are stated differently. Markey, for example, calls for reducing greenhouse emissions by 20 percent from the 2005 level over the next 10 years.
Criticisms of cap-and-trade are already being heard. One of them is that such a plan amounts to a carbon tax, as though no one advocating the plan has acknowledged there would be costs involved. The $646 billion has been clearly stated. One suggestion is that the permits should be distributed at no charge. Another criticism is that such an undertaking would inevitably undermine the current effort to get the economy in order, which is to ignore action and attempt to avoid all expense. It might be cheaper, economically, to do nothing. Environmentally, it's a different story. Doing nothing on climate change should not be an option.
More..
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090409/OPINION01/904090333/1008
Last edited on Wed Apr 15th, 2009 06:08 am by Shayye
|
GUAlliance
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | Cyprus |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 9th, 2009 07:56 am |
|
This all seems like they are trying to hush us up by giving vague descriptions of what results they are aiming for, with little details on how to get there. Since probably they don't know what path to choose and what laws to actually enforce to reach our target. The administration probably thinks: Hey, by the time we leave the theoretical stage and enter the stage that we have to actually choose a strategy and follow it through, it will become someone else's problem.
And the financial crisis, although very important, is just another excuse to say, yet again we will push costly and difficult environmental issues to the side, so that we may focus on finance problems that are the "immediate" problem.
This is prevalent, not only in the US, but with every administration I have seen. If seen from their point of view, I don't blame them. Firstly, they are politicians, designed to say what you want to hear to keep the masses from causing trouble, and creating social unrest. Social, political and economical problems are what most of them are actually trained for, so they will naturally choose to solve these issues in their country before tackling something that is new and has uncertain solutions. Financial, social and political problems seem more immediate, because if one sector fails, it shows a weakness in their administration, blame is quickly passed to them for the failure and the countries profile is compromised.
|
Current time is 12:45 pm | |
|
|
|
|
