Proof positive that the whole concern about the effects on the economy by doing something to curb CO2 emissions is just a canard. Carbon Ruling: A Welcome First Step By Christine Todd Whitman This ruling should herald the beginning of a carbon-constrained U.S. economy. For a moment last Tuesday I thought President Bush might agree. When he said that "whatever we do must be in concert with what happens internationally," I thought the administration might adopt a position on carbon emissions that would bring us closer to the regulation efforts being made by the rest of the developed world.
Then the president continued, "Unless there is an accord with China, China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a brief period of time." True, China will outpace our emissions level, but there was a time when the United States led the world in environmental protection. I hope we are not following China when it comes to environmental policymaking.
Of course, the president is right that we must find a way to reduce our carbon emissions without cutting back on economic prosperity. However, environmental protection and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive. Over the past 10 years, for example, United Technologies, on whose board I serve, has reduced its absolute energy use by 19 percent while its revenue has grown more than 80 percent.
For guidance on which to base a policy, we can look to the results from the last time the Clean Air Act was amended, in 1990. Those amendments required substantial reductions in the emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), the primary component of acid rain. There was broad agreement that acid rain was seriously damaging our environment. There was less unanimity about the method to be used to achieve the reduction in emissions — a market-based cap-and-trade system.
Controversial among environmentalists and businesses, the trading program had government-set standards for safe concentrations of SO2, a clear timetable for achievement and strict penalties for non-attainment. In a break from previous approaches, the government said it didn't care how businesses reached the goals, only that they do it on time.
In addition, if a company lowered its emissions below the required level, it could keep the difference for future development or sell the credits to others that hadn't met the standards. The government cared only that the air was cleaned to required levels. If the profit motive spurred private-sector actions, fine.
Before I left the EPA, we checked how effective that program had been. The results were startling. Not only had there been nearly universal compliance across all emitters, the levels of SO2in the atmosphere were lower than the regulation had required, and the feat had been achieved in about half the time called for at much lower cost than anticipated.
– The writer was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 2001 to 2003.
Seems to me that doing something at a corporate level about the environment can be very very lucrative for business. This whole concern about the effects on the economy is nothing but a Conservative Canard. LOL.
Actually, the whole difference is implementation. If we do something smart, like the cap/trade program, businesses can prosper and have some flexibility.
If we institute something inflexible, draconian and patently unfair (like letting hard core polluters like China do little because they are "developing"), don't expect buy-in, even if it would still benefit the US. You can't ignore human nature and expect to change human behavior.
draconian and patently unfair (like letting hard core polluters like China do little because they are "developing"), don't expect buy-in, even if it would still benefit the US
Again, as I have stated time and time again, that is a sweeping generalization using China as your example. While it is true they are by far the largest user of dirty coal fire electricity plants, they have categorically stopped any further construction of said plants in favor or clean-coal burning plants and or nuclear.
The US is so far behind on this front that even China with its polluting electricity plants is AHEAD of the United States.
Actually, if you want to talk about costs to businesses and the economy, the threat of environmental controls on business to profits is actually considerably less than that of the threat of litigious action against companies.
A whopping 94% of potential profits is sucked out of businesses each year due to the cost of operating in this country (SarbanesOxley) and fighting law suits (Source CNBC Closing Bell 4/9/07). That makes the cost of implementing mandatory pollution controls small in comparison.
Silver, this post had nothing to do with Bush, but I've seen the Supreme Court decision. It adds even less to the global warming debate than it does to case law, which is very little.
Cineaste, if getting rid of carbon gases and other pollutants that supposedly bring about global warming can be very, very lucrative for business, why haven't they done it or why wouldn't they do it. Do you honestly think someone at an energy, automobile, or whatever company just wants to continue getting bad press for their "carbon footprint" just for the fun of it? If it was better for business and the economy then it would be done right now. Right or wrong, business are driven by a profit. It there was more profit to made in buying into man-made global warming, businesses would be doing it without needed the government to force them.
Since everyone is throwing in links to other global warming stories/columns, here is a piece in the Boston Globe about MIT's professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen and how the columnist sat through meetings where global warming theory supporters told hoards of journalists that it would be "irresponsible" for the media to get the other side of the debate because there is no other side. When someone starts demanding that you ignore their opponents on an issue, something is wrong.
Silver, this post had nothing to do with Bush, but I've seen the Supreme Court decision. It adds even less to the global warming debate than it does to case law, which is very little.
That is really a matter of interpretation isn't it? I read the majority and the minority opinion as well as the source of the actual lawsuit. It does indeed have ties to both the Bush Administrations interpretation of the Clean Air Act, its authority to regulate, and also the GW debate.
The lawsuit had direct ties to the EPA refusing to enforce portions of the Clean Air Act which by law it had the obligation to. That directive towards the EPA came directly from the Bush Administration and was a complete 180 on the EPA stance a short 8 years ago. So, yes it does have a lot to do with the administration.
It has a lot to do with the GW debate in that the EPA can't simply ignore what it is required to enforce according to the law. It cannot selectively implent portions of the Clean Air Act that agrees with the current Administrations' policy. Instead it must come up with hard scientific evidence that refutes claims that CO2 does not cause any harm to the environment. That is something that is incredibly hard for them to do. So, yes it has impact.
Aaron, you and I have gone back and forth about the limitations of Supreme Court authority before. I think this is no different. It will have sweeping impact. Maybe not on GW specifically, but in the actual regulation and enforcement of laws on the books. Something the current administration (even according to CT Whitman) has been very happy to subvert to suit there own policy and special interest objectives. When someone starts demanding that you ignore their opponents on an issue, something is wrong.
Link away. I have no problem with people shedding light on belittlement. It is happening on all sides.
I can just as easily say the same thing about the US and China delegations belittling of top scientists at the recent GW summitt…forcing them to water down the findings that were just released to suit the Administration and the Chinese own special interests.
So, you see it is happening on the other side of the fence too.
Silver, this post had nothing to do with Bush,
I will concede that this specific post to the BBC Documentary had nothing to do with Bush specifically. However Aaron, you did open this thread up for comments and these comments are indeed related to the GW debate. That is just the way it goes.
The debate about GW on this site has and will continue to run the gamut from:
A) From what you believe are the merits of the nay sayers, the economic impacts, flawed science, etc
to B) with the believers in the sound science that exists see as the United States' and the current Administration's failure to enforce even the current environmental laws that are on the books, to the silencing of government scientists, and further the proven fallacy of negative economic impacts of the Kyoto treaty.
From what I have seen here, long before I arrived and since I showed up is that this is a debate that will continue to generate comments. Enough said.
Oh, I don't mind the comments even about Bush, but I just wanted to let it be known that I wasn't linking this at all to Bush or politics in general.
So let me get this straight the debate is about my trust in "flawed science" and "nay sayers" and your belief in "sound science." That just about sum it up?
What is it that Cineaste says about it being hard to have a debate?
Oh, I don't mind the comments even about Bush, but I just wanted to let it be known that I wasn't linking this at all to Bush or politics in general.
Good. I don't think anyone that reads this blog was under any sort of false impression that your post or link was specifically tied to either. I think we are all reasonably intelligent enough to figure it out, but I appreciate where you are coming from. So let me get this straight the debate is about my trust in "flawed science" and "nay sayers" and your belief in "sound science." That just about sum it up?
Aaron, pick whatever label you want and insert to replace the terms I used. I frankly don't care. This debate like all other forms of debates has two sides and within those sides different realms of extremes within the spectrum. It could just be as easily the Howdy Doody constituency vs. the Ronald McDonald fan club.
The fact is that you and I and possibly Seeker are at on opposite sides of this debate.
So, if it makes you feel better, pick a label and move ahead. ;)
This is what it seems like to me…
ClayBennett
Did anyone see 60 Minutes last night? Seems convincing to me.
Proof positive that the whole concern about the effects on the economy by doing something to curb CO2 emissions is just a canard.
Carbon Ruling: A Welcome First Step
By Christine Todd Whitman
This ruling should herald the beginning of a carbon-constrained U.S. economy. For a moment last Tuesday I thought President Bush might agree. When he said that "whatever we do must be in concert with what happens internationally," I thought the administration might adopt a position on carbon emissions that would bring us closer to the regulation efforts being made by the rest of the developed world.
Then the president continued, "Unless there is an accord with China, China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a brief period of time." True, China will outpace our emissions level, but there was a time when the United States led the world in environmental protection. I hope we are not following China when it comes to environmental policymaking.
Of course, the president is right that we must find a way to reduce our carbon emissions without cutting back on economic prosperity. However, environmental protection and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive. Over the past 10 years, for example, United Technologies, on whose board I serve, has reduced its absolute energy use by 19 percent while its revenue has grown more than 80 percent.
For guidance on which to base a policy, we can look to the results from the last time the Clean Air Act was amended, in 1990. Those amendments required substantial reductions in the emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), the primary component of acid rain. There was broad agreement that acid rain was seriously damaging our environment. There was less unanimity about the method to be used to achieve the reduction in emissions — a market-based cap-and-trade system.
Controversial among environmentalists and businesses, the trading program had government-set standards for safe concentrations of SO2, a clear timetable for achievement and strict penalties for non-attainment. In a break from previous approaches, the government said it didn't care how businesses reached the goals, only that they do it on time.
In addition, if a company lowered its emissions below the required level, it could keep the difference for future development or sell the credits to others that hadn't met the standards. The government cared only that the air was cleaned to required levels. If the profit motive spurred private-sector actions, fine.
Before I left the EPA, we checked how effective that program had been. The results were startling. Not only had there been nearly universal compliance across all emitters, the levels of SO2in the atmosphere were lower than the regulation had required, and the feat had been achieved in about half the time called for at much lower cost than anticipated.
– The writer was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 2001 to 2003.
Seems to me that doing something at a corporate level about the environment can be very very lucrative for business. This whole concern about the effects on the economy is nothing but a Conservative Canard. LOL.
Actually, the whole difference is implementation. If we do something smart, like the cap/trade program, businesses can prosper and have some flexibility.
If we institute something inflexible, draconian and patently unfair (like letting hard core polluters like China do little because they are "developing"), don't expect buy-in, even if it would still benefit the US. You can't ignore human nature and expect to change human behavior.
draconian and patently unfair (like letting hard core polluters like China do little because they are "developing"), don't expect buy-in, even if it would still benefit the US
Again, as I have stated time and time again, that is a sweeping generalization using China as your example. While it is true they are by far the largest user of dirty coal fire electricity plants, they have categorically stopped any further construction of said plants in favor or clean-coal burning plants and or nuclear.
The US is so far behind on this front that even China with its polluting electricity plants is AHEAD of the United States.
Actually, if you want to talk about costs to businesses and the economy, the threat of environmental controls on business to profits is actually considerably less than that of the threat of litigious action against companies.
A whopping 94% of potential profits is sucked out of businesses each year due to the cost of operating in this country (SarbanesOxley) and fighting law suits (Source CNBC Closing Bell 4/9/07). That makes the cost of implementing mandatory pollution controls small in comparison.
Silver, this post had nothing to do with Bush, but I've seen the Supreme Court decision. It adds even less to the global warming debate than it does to case law, which is very little.
Cineaste, if getting rid of carbon gases and other pollutants that supposedly bring about global warming can be very, very lucrative for business, why haven't they done it or why wouldn't they do it. Do you honestly think someone at an energy, automobile, or whatever company just wants to continue getting bad press for their "carbon footprint" just for the fun of it? If it was better for business and the economy then it would be done right now. Right or wrong, business are driven by a profit. It there was more profit to made in buying into man-made global warming, businesses would be doing it without needed the government to force them.
Since everyone is throwing in links to other global warming stories/columns, here is a piece in the Boston Globe about MIT's professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen and how the columnist sat through meetings where global warming theory supporters told hoards of journalists that it would be "irresponsible" for the media to get the other side of the debate because there is no other side. When someone starts demanding that you ignore their opponents on an issue, something is wrong.
Silver, this post had nothing to do with Bush, but I've seen the Supreme Court decision. It adds even less to the global warming debate than it does to case law, which is very little.
That is really a matter of interpretation isn't it? I read the majority and the minority opinion as well as the source of the actual lawsuit. It does indeed have ties to both the Bush Administrations interpretation of the Clean Air Act, its authority to regulate, and also the GW debate.
The lawsuit had direct ties to the EPA refusing to enforce portions of the Clean Air Act which by law it had the obligation to. That directive towards the EPA came directly from the Bush Administration and was a complete 180 on the EPA stance a short 8 years ago. So, yes it does have a lot to do with the administration.
It has a lot to do with the GW debate in that the EPA can't simply ignore what it is required to enforce according to the law. It cannot selectively implent portions of the Clean Air Act that agrees with the current Administrations' policy. Instead it must come up with hard scientific evidence that refutes claims that CO2 does not cause any harm to the environment. That is something that is incredibly hard for them to do. So, yes it has impact.
Aaron, you and I have gone back and forth about the limitations of Supreme Court authority before. I think this is no different. It will have sweeping impact. Maybe not on GW specifically, but in the actual regulation and enforcement of laws on the books. Something the current administration (even according to CT Whitman) has been very happy to subvert to suit there own policy and special interest objectives.
When someone starts demanding that you ignore their opponents on an issue, something is wrong.
Link away. I have no problem with people shedding light on belittlement. It is happening on all sides.
I can just as easily say the same thing about the US and China delegations belittling of top scientists at the recent GW summitt…forcing them to water down the findings that were just released to suit the Administration and the Chinese own special interests.
So, you see it is happening on the other side of the fence too.
Silver, this post had nothing to do with Bush,
I will concede that this specific post to the BBC Documentary had nothing to do with Bush specifically. However Aaron, you did open this thread up for comments and these comments are indeed related to the GW debate. That is just the way it goes.
The debate about GW on this site has and will continue to run the gamut from:
A) From what you believe are the merits of the nay sayers, the economic impacts, flawed science, etc
to B) with the believers in the sound science that exists see as the United States' and the current Administration's failure to enforce even the current environmental laws that are on the books, to the silencing of government scientists, and further the proven fallacy of negative economic impacts of the Kyoto treaty.
From what I have seen here, long before I arrived and since I showed up is that this is a debate that will continue to generate comments. Enough said.
Oh, I don't mind the comments even about Bush, but I just wanted to let it be known that I wasn't linking this at all to Bush or politics in general.
So let me get this straight the debate is about my trust in "flawed science" and "nay sayers" and your belief in "sound science." That just about sum it up?
What is it that Cineaste says about it being hard to have a debate?
Oh, I don't mind the comments even about Bush, but I just wanted to let it be known that I wasn't linking this at all to Bush or politics in general.
Good. I don't think anyone that reads this blog was under any sort of false impression that your post or link was specifically tied to either. I think we are all reasonably intelligent enough to figure it out, but I appreciate where you are coming from.
So let me get this straight the debate is about my trust in "flawed science" and "nay sayers" and your belief in "sound science." That just about sum it up?
Aaron, pick whatever label you want and insert to replace the terms I used. I frankly don't care. This debate like all other forms of debates has two sides and within those sides different realms of extremes within the spectrum. It could just be as easily the Howdy Doody constituency vs. the Ronald McDonald fan club.
The fact is that you and I and possibly Seeker are at on opposite sides of this debate.
So, if it makes you feel better, pick a label and move ahead. ;)