The Cap And Trade Legislation

Dr James Hansen’s argumentative essay, “A Solution to the Climate Problem,” discusses his premise that it is imperative for humankind to deal with carbon dioxide emissions, which he believes needs to be phased out by the mid-21st century. He begins with the current paradigm in government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and claims that so far it has been a lot of talk and action in the other direction. Dr Hansen argues that while governments pay lip service to agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, they are going full steam ahead with projects that will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, such as going forth with coal-fired power plants, coal-to-liquids, hydraulic fracturing, and tar sands oil extraction. Dr Hansen believes

Cap-and-trade is environmentally and economically approach to capping and controlling greenhouse gas emissions which is the primary cause of global warming. It is a policy move aimed at controlling large amounts of gas emissions from a cluster of sources. This approach sets an overall cap which is the maximum amount of gas emissions per a stipulated compliance period, for all the sources under that particular program.

Cap-and-trade is a program which uses a market-based mechanism to control greenhouse gas emissions, the primary driver of global warming. The “cap” sets a limit on emissions, which is lowered over time to reduce the amount of pollutants released into the atmosphere. It limits emissions in electric power generation, natural gas, transportation, and large manufacturers. The “trade” creates a market for carbon allowances, leading to more cost-effective pollution cuts, and incentive to invest in cleaner technology. The less they emit, the less they pay, so it is in their economic incentive to pollute less. Each allowance (typically equivalent to one metric ton of carbon dioxide) are auctioned or allocated to regulated emitters on a regular basis.

Cap and trade is a cost-effective method for reducing greenhouse gas emission/pollution. The amount of emissions that are produced by the economy (cap) is limited and allows those insured by the cap to trade amongst themselves (trade) in a flexible and cost-effective method/manner, creating a price on carbon pollution. The "cap" sets a maximum limit on the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that regulated emitters collectively can produce. Each year, the cap is lowered, requiring industry and other greenhouse gas polluters, such as natural gas distributors and other fuel suppliers, to reduce their emissions. The "trade" refers to a market where companies can buy or sell “allowances,” or pay others to reduce emissions on their behalf, in

Have you ever wondered how many people there are in the world? This beautiful place called earth is home to billions of humans, and human-kind is not alone. Although at times we may forget that we have several different species living with us, not only do different species live with us but they are part of the circle of life that is the root of our existence. For many years’ people have been releasing excessive amounts of CO2 into the earth, with little to no consideration of the effects it may have on surrounding environments. Exploiting natural resources to leave nothing behind except for oil spills and other environmentally dangerous components. Corporations need to be held to higher expectations with more regulations, there needs to be a government that will enforce these regulations. Who decides our government? People do, local communities vote for who runs their city, state, and country. Communities can help spread awareness and demand cleaner energy, stricter laws, and reduce their carbon footprint.

“The cap”: Each large-scale emitter, or company, will have a limit on the amount of greenhouse gas that it can emit. “The trade”: It will be relatively cheaper or easier for some companies to reduce their emissions below their required limit than others. These more efficient companies, who emit less than their allowance, can sell their extra permits to companies that are not able to make reductions as easily.

A cap-and-trade program sets a maximum level of pollution, and distributes emission permits among firms that produce emissions (Carbon Tax, 2013). The purpose of which is regulation of specific emissions by stationary and mobile sources, and setting a specific level which all emitters are re-quired to meet. Cap-and-trade possibly has less of a direct economic component to it than the other alternatives to reducing emissions described due to the ability to trade permits versus the expendi-ture of resources improving technology, with some arguing it is to the detriment of the environment. As stated in the article found in Reclaiming the Environmental Agenda, by Ashford, N. et al., 2008, “being a market-based instrument, ‘the cap-and-trade option suggests that at least this form of MBI may be more environmentally effective than the usual command-and-control alternatives, in addition to being more economically efficient.” (Ashford, N. and Caldart, C., 2008, p. 908).

The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) as well as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were failures. The North American Free Trade Agreement was one of the most controversial documents of the 20th century, beginning January 1st 1988.1 The reason it was so controversial was because it was loved in some ways yet hated in others. One of the reasons why the FTA and NAFTA were failures is due to the fact that Prime Minister Brian Mulroney lost a lot of votes caused by the amount of voters that disapproved of the FTA and NAFTA. Another reason the FTA and NAFTA were failures is because the agreement did not improve the amount of full time jobs in Canada, which was one of the reasons that the FTA and NAFTA was created in the first place. The final reason the deal failed was because the deal was supposed to improve productivity around Canada but really did nothing. The FTA and NAFTA were failures because it only helped a small handful of Canadians and hindered many more.

Cap and trade is a system aimed at diminishing the rate at which carbon is emitted into the atmosphere by creating an economic system based on meeting a certain minimal threshold or paying low-emitting companies for the right to emit in their place. For example, if company A only emits half of the emissions cap, that company can sell (or trade) the remaining credits to company B, should company B choose to emit one-and-a-half times the cap. A main objection to the cap and trade system is that it is not a strong enough means by which to curb emissions of fossil fuels and is inferior to specifically stronger carbon taxes. While initially appealing, the notion of simply strengthening carbon taxes fails to properly stifle carbon emissions and to adequately incentivize “green” development in comparison to the cap and trade system, preventing carbon taxes from occupying a central role to mitigate carbon emissions.

Tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere every day and the consequence is the destabilization of Earth’s climate and damage to existing and endangered ecosystems. In order to avoid these ramifications, carbon emissions must be reduced. Industrial nations like the United States rely heavily on the burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas, as their primary source of energy generation. Unfortunately, this has led to the United States being one of the top leaders in carbon emissions in the world along with India and China (Woodard, 2007, pg. 27). A proposed solution that has already been implemented in several nations is the carbon tax (CO2 tax), which puts a price on and taxes the carbon dioxide emitted from the burning of fossil fuels and makes polluters pay the price for the emission of their negative externalities into the environment. As fuel follows through with the combustion process, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere where it remains. The carbon dioxide traps the heat in the Earth’s atmosphere leading to a rise in global warming and climate change (Carbon Tax Center, 2016a, What’s a Carbon Tax section, para. 2). A carbon tax can quickly and easily be implemented by the United States federal government and has the potential to conserve the environment by reducing carbon emissions,

In accord with 97 percent of scientists, I agree that climate change is real and a major threat to humanity. In fact, I feel that it is one of our largest national security threats. The funny thing is, the global community agrees with democrats on this. In 2015, world leaders came together to sign the paris agreement, in which major countries around the world “pledged to do all they could to hold the rise of the planet’s temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius (Lee).” However, President Trump appears to be renegading on this promise, giving up Obama’s clean energy initiatives in favor of more coal. He has additionally cut the EPA and put a climate change skeptic at it’s highest position. He has even called climate change a “hoax perpetrated by the Chineese.” All of this is nearly comical, but also has grave dangers with it. I believe that if we do not curb climate change, we will be seeing serious negative effects, as habitats are destroyed, weather becomes more extreme, and the ice caps begin to melt (Lee). To me, this is terrifying, and why it is one of my most important reasons for taking the democratic stance. I believe that we should invest in clean energy, with the help of government subsidies, so that we can develop solar, nuclear, and wind energy to the point where we can eventually begin to cut out fossil fuels. Companies should also only receive a very limited number of tradeable carbon

Carbon taxing coal-based products, in a revenue-neutral way, will help discourage overuse of fossil fuels. The United States needs to reduce carbon emissions in order to avoid the costs that pollution and climate change inflict on the general economy and individuals. Carbon, unlike other commodities exchanged and consumed in the free market, bears unique costs to the general economy that its market price does not encompass. The pollution we create when we consume carbon contaminates our air, raises temperatures, and makes severe weather events more frequent. A carbon tax is an economic mechanism that forces actors in a free market to come face-to-face with the social cost of

Frank states that, "taking action won’t cost much. According to estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a tax of $80 a metric ton on carbon dioxide — or a cap-and-trade system with similar charges — would stabilize temperatures by midcentury... Let’s assume a tax of $300 a ton, just to be safe.  Under such a tax, the prices of goods would rise in proportion to their carbon footprints — in the case of gasoline, for example, by roughly $2.60 a gallon."  As the price rises to fit the tax, in the long term the demand for goods with a large carbon footprint will gradually decrease as people adjust their lifestyles to account for higher prices of the goods they once consumed with less awareness.  Frank goes on to explain that, "A sudden price increase of that magnitude could indeed be painful. But if phased in, it would cause much less harm. Facing steadily increasing fuel prices, for example, manufacturers would scramble to develop more efficient vehicles."  An increase in demand for new types of energy-efficient cars would cause a temporary shortage as suppliers work to catch up to the demand, in order to return to equilibrium.  In this situation, demand drives production and inspires suppliers to develop new technology.

Did you know that the United States is the second largest contributor of CO2, and the less concerned about it? Climate change has been a problem for decades, but just recently we start to see how big of a problem climate change is, and can be. Climate change is one of the biggest problems that we are facing right now, even if keep trying to act like is nothing. Everybody, the people, the government, and big companies are a big contributor of this phenomenon. The more we keep denying its effects, the more we are going to regret it later, and going to wish that we could go back and try to fix the issue. You going to know one day, and its going to be late. Climate change should be the U.S government main focus this decade and the ones to come. Climate change can affect a country in every way economically, destroyed …., cause a lot of deaths.

These practices have left many people scared of their future as well as their children's future. It is not known what the effects of CO2 emissions will have in the future, but there seems to be a strong consensus among scientists that problems may arise. Using this knowledge, it only makes sense for us to take action and keep from finding out what might happen. It becomes difficult for any one person to feel as though he/she is making a difference, but there are things that can be done. The job of each person is to do the best they can to try to balance the carbon debt they are creating. This can be done by various methods of energy and environmental conservation. We need to be concerned about preserving our environment, but it is not necessary or helpful to become paranoid. All we can do is our part and set a good example for others to do the same. Those who want to become more involved can start new programs in the community or educate others about our environment. There are still many people who do not know the extent of damage being done to the environment. In order to effectively combat CO2 and other forms of air pollution so that future generations can live in and enjoy the same environment,