Federal/National Efforts Under Congress. Environmental initiatives did not have a fortunate path under congress. In the past 15 years, most of the innovative policies did not pass either the committee or the senate. For example, in October 2003 and again in June 2005, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act failed to operate. The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act was a combination of three different acts that require corporations to be part of cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases. It was initiated by United States Senate John McCain and Joseph Lieberman first in 2003. However, all three acts did not pass the senate. (National Wildlife Federation) In order to examine and combat global warming, Senator Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer introduced the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007 on Jan 15th, 2007. The act was proposed to increase performance abilities for electricity generation and motor vehicles with the choice in emissions “cap and trade” system. Unfortunately, the bill failed to pass committee in 2013. (Environmental Defense Fund, 2007) American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, an act initiated by Henry Waxman on May 15th, 2009, was proposed to create more clean energy working positions, assuage global warming and transfer to clean energy economy. The bill passed the house of representative in Jun. 2009. However, it also died at Senate as a result. (The New York Times, 2009) Though there are several attempts to enact
Global warming has become an undisputed fact about our current livelihoods; our planet is warming up and we are definitely part of the problem. However, this isn’t the only environmental problem that we should be concerned about. All across the world,
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
An urgent issue, climate change is undoubtedly a sweeping global dilemma of paramount importance. Though most people are aware of this fact, many either choose to ignore it, or acknowledge it, but take no action against it. Those who do choose to take action usually attempt to combat climate change by using the methods that are most commonly discussed: becoming more energy efficient, recycling, and reducing emissions through using more sustainable transportation. Though these actions are helpful, they are not the most efficient way to counter climate change.
The U.S. submitted its INDC to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level by 2025. With this plan, the U.S. has several laws related to its environmental policies. Among them, these are main four Acts (Korea Institute of Energy Research [KIER], 2016a): The Energy Policy Act established in 1992 was to secure energy security and revised in 2005 to decrease the reliance on oil and coal energy; The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) legislated in 2007 due to the necessity for energy independence caused by the unstable Middle East and high oil prices, so President Bush announced the 'Twenty in Ten Initiative ' that aimed to reduce 20% of the gasoline consumption by 2017; The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was enacted in 2009 as one of the reflationary measures, and this included $8.5 billion investment for energy-related policies; The Clean Air Act (CAA), made in 1970, regulated the atmospheric pollution sources and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used CAA to restrict the greenhouse gas.
The argument about man’s role in climate change and the role of government, the role of industry and the role of citizens is a significant challenge that crosses all levels of government, crosses all geopolitical boundaries and crosses all sectors of business. National governments across the globe are dealing with the issue in different ways, but one overarching aspect of control and mitigation can be seen in the oversight and regulation of the electric energy industry. One significant challenge facing each nation is the cost to lower carbon emissions and the question of who will pay the additional cost for compliance. Though the cost issue is significant, a much more difficult question is whether any decision on lowering emissions can make
The election of 2000 took place during a time that was mostly peaceful, unemployment rates were historically low, but however, there were a record number of terrorist threats (Muhlhausen). Despite all of these headlining topics presidential candidate Al Gore and Vice President Joe Lieberman were far more concerned about global climate change (“Al”). Gore was, and still, is very passionate about this topic (“Al”, 9). He has challenged the two biggest polluters in the world, China and The United States to, “Make the boldest move in climate change.” Figure 5
Climate change is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time. These long lasting changes are detrimental to multiple aspects of society (global warming). The Environmental Protection Agency has said the Keystone XL pipeline will impact global warming as well. Senator Sanders has led the opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. Energy efficient products are available to help combat climate change. Senator Sanders secured $3.2 billion in the economic stimulus package for energy efficient upgrades to buildings. That program resulted in energy efficient upgrades for thousands of buildings and installation of thousands of solar energy systems. Senator Sanders also combats climate change by supporting tax on carbon and methane emissions. Scientists are convinced that methane produced by livestock is a major cause of global warming. Taxing meat would lower the demand for it and therefore reduce the production of global warming gasses from livestock. That is why Senator Sanders supports the carbon and emissions
Author Lawrence M. Ling is a Project Pull Mentor’s Assistant in the Policy and Government Affairs Team of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. He is an undergraduate student at the University of California: Los Angeles who majors in Political Science, and he strongly believes that CleanPowerSF is the best solution to the growing trend of global warming.
I agree. Over the next four years we will have to take environmental protection into our own hands, especially mitigating climate change. There have already been reports that the climate change webpage on Whitehouse.gov has been taken down and replaced with the Trump Administration’s “America First” energy plan.
First, I am going to consider the issue, “impacts of climate change”, voted in 2014. This is an offer for an amendment to the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act. This act is to prohibits federal agencies to consider
Congress needs to introduce legislation that increasing environmental study of air compliance, emission control of big industry that are currently using fossil fuels, force automakers to aggressively seek out more alternative sources of renewable energy, and a nationwide study of the US global carbon footprint needs to be reevaluated. The Environmental Protection Agency along with the current administration needs to invest deeper into renewable and sustainable energy projects.
As time went on, it still was difficult for Obama to pass legislation, but he was able to get the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) passed to slow down the effects of climate change. The ARRA was an act that was created by Obama, and was used for various reasons. The main use of The ARRA was for creating and saving jobs of the common people, but Obama was actually able
It is becoming increasingly certain that climate change will have severe adverse effects on the environment in years to come. Addressing this issue poses a serious challenge for policy makers. How we choose to respond to the threat of global warming is not simply a political issue. It is also an economic issue and an ethical one. Responsible, effective climate change policy requires consideration of a number of complex factors, including weighing the costs of implementing climate change policies against the benefits of more environmentally sustainable practices. Furthermore, this analysis must take place amidst serious gaps in the existing research and technology concerning the developing climatic condition.
Global warming has been a controversial topic for years and some have even denied its existence; however, as more studies are being published every day in regards to our changing climate, it is hard to ignore this growing issue and how humans contribute to it. The term greenhouse gases refers to the group of gases that are primarily responsible for global warming and chief among these gases is carbon dioxide. Rising carbon dioxide levels can be attributed to a combination of burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum as well as deforestation in general ( Source A). To slow the effects of global warming, it is important for leaders in our society to consider their greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide, and make
They looked at two scenarios, inaction, where business’ continue finding and using carbon as they see fit, and action, where business’ use a low-carbon energy mix. They found that not only would the investment cost of the action scenario be no more than inaction, but it would even cost a bit less- 190.2 trillion dollars for action and 192 trillion dollars for inaction. This is before even considering the amount of money saved by the effects of the action scenario itself. The report found that, “the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion” (Business Insider). The effect of such a large economic company reporting this data is the perfect example of how using economics for the sake of reversing global warming can be really beneficial. The argument often used by economists is that becoming more sustainable would hurt the economy, but the data in this report proves just the opposite, and how terrible it would be if we did nothing. For the sake of investment in industry’s like coal and gas, this information is often denied. But this is not anywhere near the first time industry’s have had to adapt due to uncontrollable events. This report emphasizes the importance of recognizing