|
|
 |
| Jul 29, 2010 - 06:38 PM |
Queen City News - Helena's FREE Weekly Newspaper |
Helena, Montana |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depending on whom you talk to, the Obama administration's "cap-and-trade" approach to cutting carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use 20 percent by 2020 is the only realistic chance to reduce global warming pollution or a "giant economic dagger aimed at the nation's heartland", as a Detroit News editorial recently put it.
Critics say cap and trade is unrealistic and a moot point as far as Congress is concerned; they call it "dead policy walking". Opponents instead advocate a carbon tax, which supporters of cap and trade say merely delays needed action while mechanics of the tax are endlessly debated.
For liberal-arts majors like me who have, at best, a nodding acquaintance with science, it can help to know who's supporting what before trying to figure out which view makes more sense.
Here's how the conservative Heritage Foundation describes it: "These measures would set a limit, or cap, on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. The effect of such a cap would be to impose rationing of coal, oil, and natural gas on the American economy. Each covered utility, oil company, and manufacturing facility would be given allowances based on past emissions or some other formula. Those companies that emit less carbon dioxide than permitted by their allowances could sell the excess to those that do not; this is the trade part of cap and trade. Over time, the cap would be ratcheted down, requiring greater cuts in emissions." (Not exactly a rave review, especially when they throw in the loaded term "rationing".)
Here's how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency describes it: "Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth." (Bureaucratic, yes, but definitely more positive than the Heritage Foundation.)
Finally, here's a glowing description from the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based sustainability think tank whose senior researcher was in Helena this past week:
"Cap and trade commits a region to responsible limits on global warming emissions and gradually steps down those limits over time. Setting commonsense rules, cap and trade sparks the competitiveness and ingenuity of the marketplace to reduce emissions as smoothly, efficiently, and cost-effectively as possible. In short, the 'cap' is a legal limit on the quantity of greenhouse gases that a region can emit each year and 'trade' means that companies may swap among themselves the permission – or permits – to emit greenhouses gases." (Who in their right mind could oppose sparking "the competitiveness and ingenuity of the marketplace"?)
Not Sightline's Eric de Place, who was a panelist Thursday evening at UM-Helena to talk about The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 and how it could help build a clean energy economy for the U.S.
This bill, being pushed by U.S. Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., has an ambitious agenda to promote renewable energy, increase energy efficiency, limit global-warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy. Waxman and other supporters are reportedly busy lining up votes to make the bill a reality this year.
However, public opinion polls aren't encouraging. Zogby International found only 30 percent support cap and trade and 57 oppose it (the remaining 13 percent are probably liberal-arts majors who don't understand it). And Pew Research found global warming ranked last among 19 voter priorities (the economy was No. 1).
Nevertheless, de Place and his colleagues – Gregg Small of Climate Solutions in Seattle, Gloria Flora of Helena's Sustainable Obtainable Solutions, Amy Cilimburg of Montana Audubon in Missoula and Jackson Isbell of Solar Montana in Helena – see the Waxman/Markey legislation as the policy framework, or "unifying principle", within which the country could finally begin to shift its economy to "green jobs" and a cleaner environment.
While they know energy isn't the primary issue on people's minds right now, they believe that, because of Barack Obama's historic election and his support for cap and trade, solving climate change is more important than reforming healthcare and now is the time to push the matter past the congressional finish line. Obama has signaled that he wants to take "something firm" to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.
"This is by far the top priority of the environmental community," says de Place. "State and regional groups are deeply committed on this."
Witness the fledgling Montana Business Leaders for Clean Energy, they note, plus a broad coalition of regional/national firms that have lined up to support cap and trade: Nike, Starbucks, eBay, Levi Strauss, Sun Microsystems.
Cap-and-trade supporters say the U.S. energy economy has fallen behind Europe and other countries that invested in solar and other renewable energy sources 10 to 15 years ago, but they believe it's not too late for us to catch up if we apply good old American know-how.
Quotes of the week: "Seeking those reductions without any realistic plan to replace that energy is a straight path back to a pre-industrial economy and a standard of living to match it." —David O'Reilly, CEO, Chevron Corp., quoted on bloomberg.com, May 7, 2009.
"We have a historic opportunity to reinvent our economy, tackle global warming, and cut energy costs. Setting a limit on heat-trapping emissions would ensure that we make the necessary carbon emission reductions to help avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Combining a carbon cap with strong efficiency, renewable electricity, and transportation standards can deliver those emission cuts and save Americans a substantial amount of money." —Kevin Knobloch, president, Union of Concerned Scientists, April 21, 2009.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Queen City News is published every Wednesday in Helena, MT, by Mossback Media, LLC.
Contents are copyrighted and cannot be used in any form without prior permission from the QCN.
Copyright © Queen City News, 2002
Logo by Internet Navigating
Design and development by Pure Development
Best discount software.
|
|
|
