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

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

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.

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).

Most people from Mexico, just like in Veracruz, lived a simple life. Their means of income was through farming, so obviously this was their bread and butter, but not until when NAFTA, the North America Free Trade Agreement, was implemented between the United States, Mexico, and Canada (The Other Side of Immigration). Urrea states “you’d think that at least there would be beans to eat, but the great Mexican bean-growing industrial farms sold much of their crop to the United States” (45). Since then, most Mexicans, especially those people from Veracruz, was affected. Even though the primary reason for this agreement was to eliminate trade and investment barriers between Canada, U.S., and Mexico to make produce less expensive, this brought a

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.

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

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.

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,

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.

“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 recent survey showed that “the top US economists found near unanimity on the optimality of a carbon tax as an instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” In other word, pricing carbon is one of the most sensible policy prescriptions to reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) went into effect on New Year’s Day 1994. The signatory members are the United States, Mexico, and Canada. While the purpose of NAFTA is to promote investment in those regions, the treaty does not establish whether water is a saleable good. The text neither mentions the word “water,” nor does it expressly prohibit transactions involving water. This terse dichotomy leads to the following issue.

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,