By Gregory Moore
“Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.” – EPA website
President Barack Obama, in his inaugural speech and in other speeches, mentioned that he wants to be a leader of a “clean” country and in that effort he is looking to institute a “cap and trade” bill. That legislation may pass but does anyone know when the targeted date of the emissions law is set to show a result?
That’s right. In 2050, Obama is hoping that greenhouse gas emissions will have been reduced by then.
In an Oct. 8, 2007 MarketWatch article, the website cited Obama’s plan as the following:
“Under the Obama plan, the government would set annual reduction targets and would require that overall emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and would be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Edwards and Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton have also called for reducing emissions to that level by 2050. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a fellow candidate, has called for an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2040, with a 90% reduction by 2050. Obama’s plan would also spend $150 billion over 10 years on the development of climate-friendly supplies and technologies and sets a goal of reducing overall oil consumption by 35%, or 10 million barrels, by 2030. It also calls on the United States to lead a new international partnership to combat global warming.”
“Businesses don’t own the sky, the public does, and if we want them to stop polluting it, we have to put a price on all pollution,” then Democratic hopeful Obama said in that 2007 article.
So the president wants to have a law that helps reduce pollution and there are many who think that is wrong.
I wonder, what is there to gain if businesses that are polluters are allowed to have their way what would be our major health scare?
Try cancer and cancer related health issues.
Obama is correct.
Businesses don’t own the sky; the public does.
You hear every day how the ozone layer is deteriorating bit by bit. You see how weather patterns of today have given way to some serious weather patterns that normally would not have been predicted even five years ago.
The world we are living in is changing and in some cases, it is also dying.
But we need to save a few industries from a cap and trade bill simply because they may go out of business?
I don’t think so.
I understand that in some industries new equipment costs are not in the budget; especially if you need to buy things like incinerators, tractors and the like.
But if you are in an industry that is dependent upon healthy patrons, how will you survive if there are no more patrons to be around for?
Pollution is something that we cannot live with no matter if we are a business owner, a manufacturer or consumer.
The health issues far outweigh any argument against such a plan like what Obama is looking to put in place.
The current generation needs to protect future generations and if that means that a cap and trade policy that eliminates greenhouse emissions by 2050 is needed, shouldn’t we be trying to do just that? Protect the future generations?
I understand that new equipment can be costly but so is research and development.
If industries haven’t found more efficient designs on needed products, then whose fault is that?
Not the consumer.
And I think that is what the president is looking to protect.