Sunday, December 6, 2009
Cap and Trade
Many people have been feeling optimistic about the climate talks in Copenhagen. Many developing countries, including the world biggest carbon dioxide emitter China, have agreed that climate change is something that needs to happen, and participation among countries is necessary for a solution. I think it's good that China is taking up some leadership roles and recognizing that change needs to happen. Although there will be outcries against the talks saying that global warming is a hoax and that our economy will be destroyed, studies have shown that cutting greenhouse gasses will is affordable and necessary, and will only hurt our economy minimally. This is because with cap and trade (what will probably result from Copenhagen), businesses have to buy permits to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide and other GHGs. Essentially, they can increase their profits by polluting less, and the government makes money because the companies need to buy permits. Of course the businesses are going to object to this, but by using cap and trade we can reduce GHGs while making only a small impact on our economy. In my opinion, it's worth it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think this is a good start, but by no means is this enough to make the environmental impact we need now, and fast. I did research on the Cap and Trade plans, and the price they set is far below anything to force companies to stop polluting as much. It is a good start but we need to make larger changes as soon as possible.
I agree that cap and trade is definitely for the better for our ozone. Even if cap and trade impacts our economy negatively, should we really be concerned about money if emissions effect the health of our home planet earth and even our own health? Looking at the whole perspective of things, I believe that if you don't have your health, you really don't have much. Say if you have lung cancer because a near by factory emitting pollution, the economy would probably be the last of your worries. This also goes for Earth, if we have a great economy but cities are underwater and the polar ice caps are melting because of a weak ozone, it pretty much out weighs the economy once again.
The cap and trade idea sounds good but I doubt it will make a big enough difference to companies that have to buy it. Right now, especially in the bad economy, businesses are worried about making money. They are not really worried about saving the environment at this time. I think there needs to be a bigger incentive to change to the cap and trade method. The difference needs to be so significant that companies are forced to change. I think many countries follow the United States since it is a powerful country and if the US
leads the way, then more countries will hopefully follow. The cap and trade is a good start, but it needs some follow up methods as well.
Talia- there is an incentive for the businesses to use cap and trade. The less they pollute, the less permits they need to buy. For example, maybe they need to buy a permit for every 100 lbs for carbon dioxide they emit.So, since businesses are always worried about making their money, by polluting less they get to make more. This way the environment is spared and businesses can save some money by doing so (in the perfect case they would. But in reality I think they would actually lose money because they will pay for permits, but I also think this amount won't be much and have little impact on the economy). Overall, I think cap and trade is a good idea because businesses would actually have to pay if they want to pollute.
as mentioned, cap and trade is a good idea, however i believe that programs like these need to be implemented along side other environmental regulation laws. more strict and decisive laws need to be implemented in order to show the consequences for not complying with programs and standards. consequenes, such as fines, jail time, etc. are huge incentive to obey.
Post a Comment