Should We Pay For Smog Check And Paying An Extra Amount Of Dollars?

Last summer the Obama Administration finalized climate regulations for new and existing power plants under the clean air act. Those regulations targeted coal-fired power plants, the cost of energy went up significantly for all Americans but especially Utahns. The increase expense of energy has put more strain on the family, individuals, and businesses will destroy jobs and strain economic growth. All these consequences have been for nothing. No matter what you believe on the subject of man-made greenhouse emissions, the regulations will have a negligible impact—if any—on global temperatures. If the states would have more power over the regulation of emissions, it would lead to an economic growth not only in the nation but especially in Utah. Having more power on the state level is sometimes not even enough. For example Salt Lake County has a very high concentration of emission. Utah county has significantly less emission being released into the atmosphere. But we are taxed the same amount as they are. Sometimes putting power in the states can not adequately solve problems, but putting more power on the local level can lead to a more democratic

The world economy is a very complex system; in the system harmful externalities disrupt capital flows and determine economic productivity. Most notable of these externalities is inadvertent global warming. Spending towards research and regulation of climate change at both the national and international level are very important in determining current and future business trends. Economists and scientists worldwide continuously debate the pros and cons of emissions reduction and what consequences can quickly follow. Though many have different views on the issue, all can agree that the immediate and long term effects of climate change have become an economic matter of paramount importance. The sweeping impact from climate change will have important fiscal, financial, and macroeconomic ramifications that influence global commerce standards.

Conclusion: If we all would do as many things that we possibly can to help reduce greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, we would all be doing a great thing by helping to ensure that our grand-kids and theirs will still have this beautiful planet to live on and enjoy. Thank

According to ucsusa.org today global warming is linked to the effect greenhouse gases have on the Earth’s average surface temperature. While the American people may be guilty of contributing to the dilemma of global warming; they are trying to help with the concept of “Buying Local”. If they committed to doing this then they could be an example for the world to follow

Thank you for another week of interesting information. I do agree with your discussion regarding "climate change is likely to have very negative effects on air, drinking water, food, and shelter; also known as social and environmental determinants of health." In answering your question regarding the smog in Los Angeles, it is a worst now than the 1970's for sure. According to Karlamangla (2016), by 2050, the Los Angeles area is expected to warm by 5 degrees and higher temperatures will create more smog, leading to more asthma and cardiovascular disease, including heart attacks. Further, the changing climate will not only bring new diseases but also will threaten the water supply, worsen air quality and cardiovascular disease and cause deaths

In the absence of federal legislation, states have the liberty to address climate change and formulate policies that mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Texas and California have similar deregulated energy markets and economic goals, yet have pursued different policies, providing a fitting opportunity for Texas to analyze, compare and consider California’s comprehensive law and regulations designed to mitigate GHG emissions. Key focus areas include electricity generation and use , transportation, and industry . Given the comprehensive focus of energy policies, this report specifically emphasizes electricity generation and use. ,

Ontario has its own creative and effective strategies to combat climate change. One of Ontario’s goal is a low-carbon future. To accomplish this the province started making carbon reductions in 1990 and are on track to reduce carbon emissions by 15% in 2020, 37 per cent in 2030 and 80 per cent in 2050 (Climate Change Action Plan, 2017). Ontario’s target of reducing emissions by 6% was met on schedule in 2014 (Climate Change Action Plan, 2017). One of the reasons this has been made possible is because of Ontario’s investment in carbon reduction. For example, in 2015 Ontario committed $325-million payment to Ontario’s Green Investment Fund to support programs that help households and businesses implement

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.

Nature’s Price Tag” discusses the misconceptions we have about preserving “natures service,” as a burden on the economic growth, and how we shouldn't let the economy drive the direction of our climate. Doing something now, will prevent a lot of future damages and generations to come, will be better off. The barrier that often stops addressing climate change in the denial industry of it all. As mention in class, the denial of climate change means that they simply don't have to do anything about it because nature will either run its course or the changes isn't anything to be alarm about. Goulder and Juniper presented clear ideas of how to lets nature dictates the economy, as it will proved for us in the long haul.

As the chief policy analyst of state XYZ, it was with great interest that I read of California's recent proposal to reduce mobile-source emissions by requiring that 10 percent of all new cars in the state be electric. Although this policy only applies to the state of California, given our location, it is inevitable that there will be some 'spill over effects' upon the local economy both in the short and the long term. Also, it has been suggested that it may be advantageous for our own state to adapt such a proposal, given the economic and political pressures that will arise thanks to California's example.

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

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution machinery and surface temperatures have been on the rise. Some may argue that the increasing temperatures are strictly due to the rise of machinery and less strict efficiency standards. The U.S has been debating what methods are efficient for combating increasing emissions some argue that a carbon tax has many positive impacts some say if one were to be adopted they would need reforms. This paper will dive deep into the the effects of climate of change and whether or not a carbon tax can fully help to decrease these emissions.

There are many ways in which we can slow and even stop the Greenhouse effect. More public

One clear benefit of limiting greenhouse gases is that by limiting the emissions we would save thousands of lives around the world. According to the article “Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Prevent Premature Deaths” by LiveScience “researchers found that aggressively reducing greenhouse gas emissions could help prevent 300,000 to 700,000 premature deaths by the year 2030,” and “3 million by 2050.” And these are just