Should The Environmental Protection Agency Proceed With The Clean Power?

For example, under a cap-and-trade system, a company with large carbon emissions might pay $1 billion dollars upfront for a high cap, or pay almost $2 billion under a carbon taxing system. With our Cap-and-Tax program, a company might pay $500,000 to get a high cap on their emissions, then pay $750,000 in gas taxes. The company doesn’t have to pay a massive amount upfront, and doesn’t pay as much to carbon taxes. This system will make large carbon taxes more manageable for struggling companies, and save companies money from carbon

In the beginning, the writers present the process of the research conducted by the MIT researchers and conclusions that showed how even a low carbon tax would be effective at lowering carbon emissions. The writers continue the article by pointing out the effects of different policies, relating to the revenue created from a carbon tax, on corporations and lower income households. Finally, the writers draw attention to the fact that this carbon tax will greatly influence the effects of global warming. This article was written for Americans and is a solution that is perfect for the political spectrum of any government institution within the United States. The article addresses ways that a carbon tax can be used to please both liberals and conservatives. Though the writers did not conduct their own research, they did cite a study conducted by university researchers and a government organization and use interviews with key researchers in the study. Though this article cites only one research study, the idea of a carbon tax is still a viable solution and it will be used in my research to show that there is a viable solution to the problem of air

Texas has been successful in becoming a key leader in the energy market. Nevertheless, implementing market-driven regulations similar to California’s cap-and-trade program could provide additional benefits, especially in view of federal expectations to reduce Texas’s CO2 emissions by about 40 percent. This report provides an overview of California’s current efforts and challenges, especially those associated with its cap-and-trade program. The biggest challenge for Texas to adapt cap-and-trade regulation seems to lie within perception and attitude of its residents. Californian’s enthusiasm and investment is evident in the lawsuits aimed at maintaining stringent standards. Additionally, litigations challenges with the interstate commerce dormant clause in mind could cause costly and cumbersome delays to an

The issue of carbon emissions is an important one not only from an environmental perspective but also an economic one. While reducing carbon emissions is an important one for the health of human beings as well as that of the environment, the larger question is what type of policy strategy is best for both reducing such emissions which might have an impact on efforts to mitigate the effects of pollution on climate change. While ther are options to consider which does not rely on economics-- technological or output standards achieved by command and control regulations--they are often fraught with political resistance by industry because they do not allow industry to make any choices or play a role in solving the problem of

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 Climate Leadership Plan in both Federal and Provincial Governments (Alberta, BC, and Federal) impose restrictions and carbon tax leading to increased administration costs and reduced profitability.

This paper explores the economic impact the Clean Power Plan, as proposed by President Obama, would have on the coal industry and on society as a whole. The plan, also known as the CPP, has a goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2030. Many proponents of the coal industry claim that the CPP would harm the United States economy with little positive impact on the environment. The White House, other government agencies, scholarly organizations, and organizations regarding the protection of human health and the environment dispute these claims, stating that the CPP would actually lead to a net increase in employment, increased air quality, and an overall healthier society, all while promoting the renewable energy sector. After analyzing the data from both sides, it was determined in this paper that the overall benefits of the Clean Power Plan outweigh the costs, therefore the plan should go forward as planned.

There are many advantages and disadvantages when it comes to any system in regards to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. If there is a legislation that seems like environmentally would be best, most likely it comes with a cost that sometimes may seem unsustainable. Just the same, there are advantages and disadvantages to the cap-and-trade system. As Steve Richey writes in his ‘Pros and Cons of Cap and Trade’ article. The major draw toward this program is its efficiency. Companies are able to reduce their emissions at a low cost, and sell emissions credits to companies who cannot. A certain number of credits are made available to purchase. This allows the option for environmentalist to purchase the credits and retire them, therefore decreasing the harmful effects of climate change. The disadvantages to the cap-and-trade system are that larger companies drawn to use coal, oil and gas have less of an incentive to switch to using

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.

In 1980 congress passed and President Carter signed the Acid Precipitation Act in response to the heated scientific debates in the 1970s about the causes and effects of acid rain, as well as, the political debates over the types of policies that should be enacted in response. A wide range of opinion sprang forth concerning the level of restrictiveness of the control of sulfur dioxide emissions. Some believed there should be less restrictiveness of emission control since scientific evidence of adverse effects could not withstand criticism, whereas others advocated for more restrictiveness that would end up costing billions of dollars to obtain credible scientific evidence to back it.

First we should understand how the carbon cap and trade system came about. The system of carbon cap trade used to be known as ‘emissions trading’, the alliance of free-market republicans and renegade environmentalists got the system adopted as national law in 1990 as a part of the Clean Air Act, to control the power-plant pollutants that cause acid rain, which is triggered by vast clouds of sulfur dioxide

Cap and trade is a regulated program to offset any negative damage to the environment by private business activity. This market system has the potential to make efficient product cost, and is a sure way to guarantee lower emissions. Emitters are limited a set amount of pollution to be distributed and operating without a permit is illegal.

Though the term 'cap-and-trade ' is mostly referred to efforts in reducing carbon emission, the initial idea of trading emissions was applied to SO2 emission control. During Regan administration from 1980 to 1988, 70 bills were written to address SO2 emission and acid rain control. However, such 'command-and-control ' policy was too costly to operate. It was not until 1989 the government proposed emission trading as a means of reducing SO2 emissions2. Cap-and-trade officially became part of Clean Air Act 19903. The result from this very first cap-and-trade initiative was very encouraging-3 million tons of acid rain emissions have been cut. With the recognition of climate change, cap-and-trade was proposed to be a solution to dealing with carbon emission.

Much policy discussion about climate change suggests that surplus carbon emissions are the result of failure of the market. Since the ongoing costs of environmental degradation and climate change are not internalized in pricing fossil fuel; a commonsense (and widely flavored by policy makers in the international community) economic solution is to internalize the cost of carbon emissions. Cap and trade emissions trading schemes have proven largely popular in the global policy-making community, as they enable market flexibility and allow for international targets to be met.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created to improve human health through ensuring a safe environment. One of the EPA’s main priorities is to develop and enforce regulations (Adler). The regulations put into place are mandatory requirements that must be obeyed. Regulations can apply to anything, including businesses, state or local governments, private institutions, or individuals (“Regulations”). Even though the EPA serves to help humans by protecting the environment, it can also harm humans. The damages done to our economic lifestyles are getting worse as the EPA gains more power. Because the EPA is the only regulatory agency for the environment, they can make the rules as strict as they want. This can be problematic for