Energy and Environment Discussion Questions
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Mr. J.
Oct 14, 2009, 8:38:28 AM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
Should the government impose a cap-and-trade program to curb
greenhouse gas? Should the US commit to a global treaty to address
climate change? Explain your answers and be sure to use examples
other than the ones in the book.
greenhouse gas? Should the US commit to a global treaty to address
climate change? Explain your answers and be sure to use examples
other than the ones in the book.
Kim Sass
Oct 14, 2009, 4:40:19 PM10/14/09
to rhs-globa...@googlegroups.com
I think that the government should impose a cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gases. America uses over 20% of the world's energy, it doesn't make sense that we wouldn't try to help the depletion of the ozone layer made by emissions that America has mostly used. A cap-and-trade progam will push businesses that use a lot of energy that gives off a lot of omissions into a greener solution. Sometimes, the future is more important than the present and when it comes to global warming, we need to act now, and the cap and trade program will help America allow to be seen as a better country. Cap-and-trade programs have worked in the past such as: Acid Rain Program, NOx Budget Trading Program in the Northeast and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). (From www.epa.gov/captrade) Yes, some people will be affected economically, but I'd rather have people being affected now rather than in a couple decades when global temperatures change so much that most places will be flooded, and many people will be killed.
America should also commit to a global treaty, too because America uses many of the world's resources and is responsible for a lot of Co2 emissions, so America should be able to help. Just because America isn't "economically" able isn't an excuse. So America was economically able to bail out the guys on Wall Streeet, but America can't afford to try to find greener ways to save energy?? America needs to take responsibility for her actions. If we contributed to global warming, shouldn't we try to help stop it? Climate change isn't on the top of America's agenda, I know, but signing a treaty doesn't mean it has to be America's top priority, it just means that they'll set a goal and try to make it.
Shahrin Islam
Oct 14, 2009, 7:26:09 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I think the government should impose a cap-and-trade program to curb
greenhouse gases because according to the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/
captrade/appropriate.html), we meet the criteria for if cap-and-trade
is appropriate or not. We have longer emissions residence times,
environmental concern has broad geographic impacts, emissions can be
consistently and accurately measured and strong regulatory and
finalncial markets are available. We account for more than 20% of the
world's carbon emissions so we need to responsible for our own part.
It has proved successful in the past, in places all over the world,
particularly Europe, who have shown a huge interest in battling this
problem. The E.U. has imposed what they call the Emissions Trading
System or EU ETS.(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/
index_en.htm) which is a positive work in progress. It has worked and
they are still working on it to make it the most efficient it can be.
I actually don't think the U.S. should join a global treaty. Although
it is a worldwide problem and it is the whole world's responsibility
to strive to fix it, I think nations should be concerned with how they
can internally cut down their emissions. Every country's emissions
differ from one another. They also all can't deal with it the same
way, same time or with the same resources. You also have to account
for disasters and crises. When you join global treaties, such as the
Kyoto Protocal, you commit to cut down a certain amount by a deadline.
What if you have a economic crisis or natural disaster and you aren't
able to meet the deadline? I think each country should be conscience
of their footprint and they should deal with however they fill best.
If anything doesn't happen or certain countries are being belligerent,
and also accounting for how bad the environmental problems get, then a
global treaty should be called for.
greenhouse gases because according to the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/
captrade/appropriate.html), we meet the criteria for if cap-and-trade
is appropriate or not. We have longer emissions residence times,
environmental concern has broad geographic impacts, emissions can be
consistently and accurately measured and strong regulatory and
finalncial markets are available. We account for more than 20% of the
world's carbon emissions so we need to responsible for our own part.
It has proved successful in the past, in places all over the world,
particularly Europe, who have shown a huge interest in battling this
problem. The E.U. has imposed what they call the Emissions Trading
System or EU ETS.(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/
index_en.htm) which is a positive work in progress. It has worked and
they are still working on it to make it the most efficient it can be.
I actually don't think the U.S. should join a global treaty. Although
it is a worldwide problem and it is the whole world's responsibility
to strive to fix it, I think nations should be concerned with how they
can internally cut down their emissions. Every country's emissions
differ from one another. They also all can't deal with it the same
way, same time or with the same resources. You also have to account
for disasters and crises. When you join global treaties, such as the
Kyoto Protocal, you commit to cut down a certain amount by a deadline.
What if you have a economic crisis or natural disaster and you aren't
able to meet the deadline? I think each country should be conscience
of their footprint and they should deal with however they fill best.
If anything doesn't happen or certain countries are being belligerent,
and also accounting for how bad the environmental problems get, then a
global treaty should be called for.
Kai
Oct 14, 2009, 8:01:49 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
A cap-and-trade program would be a very effective strategy against
climate change and such a program should be implemented by the U.S. as
soon as possible. Such a system would be effective because it
stimulates economic growth by promoting green technologies while
simultaneously leading businesses toward using green energy sources.
The program would give a great boost to alternative energy companies
in the U.S. and help re-stimulate the economy. The plan would not
force companies to immediately reform, so it will not have a harsh
effect on business. Also a cap-and-trade system will increase business
and consumer awareness of climate change, thus bringing more
supporters onto the fight and raising individual and group projects in
small communities to fight against climate change.
Commitment to a global treaty will be a move in the right direction
for the U.S. A treaty will help the U.S. define its goals, and discuss
international goals with countries abroad. Also, the U.S. can use this
as an opportunity to provide its green technology to other nations and
stimulate trade. By committing to such a treaty, the U.S. also sets a
powerful example because it is such a large contributor to the
problem. This will give other nations less reason to ignore climate
change because even the biggest nations are trying to reform and slow
it down. Global climate change is not simply a national issue, and by
joining a global treaty, the U.S. can lead the way toward a green
world, and stake a firm market foothold in the energy markets of the
future.
climate change and such a program should be implemented by the U.S. as
soon as possible. Such a system would be effective because it
stimulates economic growth by promoting green technologies while
simultaneously leading businesses toward using green energy sources.
The program would give a great boost to alternative energy companies
in the U.S. and help re-stimulate the economy. The plan would not
force companies to immediately reform, so it will not have a harsh
effect on business. Also a cap-and-trade system will increase business
and consumer awareness of climate change, thus bringing more
supporters onto the fight and raising individual and group projects in
small communities to fight against climate change.
Commitment to a global treaty will be a move in the right direction
for the U.S. A treaty will help the U.S. define its goals, and discuss
international goals with countries abroad. Also, the U.S. can use this
as an opportunity to provide its green technology to other nations and
stimulate trade. By committing to such a treaty, the U.S. also sets a
powerful example because it is such a large contributor to the
problem. This will give other nations less reason to ignore climate
change because even the biggest nations are trying to reform and slow
it down. Global climate change is not simply a national issue, and by
joining a global treaty, the U.S. can lead the way toward a green
world, and stake a firm market foothold in the energy markets of the
future.
Erik Hotaling
Oct 14, 2009, 8:38:13 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I believe that the U.S should impose a cap-and-trade program to curb
greenhouse gases because as one of the worlds largest economies we
have an obligation to help slow global climate change and to begin
rebuilding the ozone. Cap-and-trade programs have worked in the past.
examples of cap-and-trade successes include the nationwide Acid Rain
Program and the regional NOx Budget Trading Program in the Northeast
(www.epa.gov/captrade). Both of these programs have been successful
the Acid Rain Program reduced SO2 emissions by 40% since 1990. I think
it is important that the American people and citizens of other
countries realize that when it comes to the environment it is not
about them it is about our future and how we can best secure a life
for future human populations.
I don't think that America has to sign a "global" treaty when it comes
to climate change. I think that each country has it own individual
issues that get in the way of reforming their economies and so it is
unfair to group all of them into one pot or agreement. However, I
think that just because America doesn't sign a treaty does not excuse
it from contributing to the global efforts to reduce green house
gasses and climate change. I think it is important for the U.S to not
only put restrictions on the emissions in the U.S but to help develop
alternate energy sources and help other countries implement these
technologies.
greenhouse gases because as one of the worlds largest economies we
have an obligation to help slow global climate change and to begin
rebuilding the ozone. Cap-and-trade programs have worked in the past.
examples of cap-and-trade successes include the nationwide Acid Rain
Program and the regional NOx Budget Trading Program in the Northeast
(www.epa.gov/captrade). Both of these programs have been successful
the Acid Rain Program reduced SO2 emissions by 40% since 1990. I think
it is important that the American people and citizens of other
countries realize that when it comes to the environment it is not
about them it is about our future and how we can best secure a life
for future human populations.
I don't think that America has to sign a "global" treaty when it comes
to climate change. I think that each country has it own individual
issues that get in the way of reforming their economies and so it is
unfair to group all of them into one pot or agreement. However, I
think that just because America doesn't sign a treaty does not excuse
it from contributing to the global efforts to reduce green house
gasses and climate change. I think it is important for the U.S to not
only put restrictions on the emissions in the U.S but to help develop
alternate energy sources and help other countries implement these
technologies.
John Li
Oct 14, 2009, 8:50:51 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I believe that the United States should impose a cap-and-trade program
to attempt to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. First of
all, the United States has the greatest energy-to-population ratio, by
using over 20% of the world's energy with only 5% of the world's
population. These are rather ridiculous numbers, and something should
be done about them. We need to find a way to fix our environment by
helping reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The time to act is now-- what
people did years ago, not even knowing about the environment and
emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide, is affecting us today, so if
we don't start fixing our problem today, it's going to be a huge
problem in the future that could potentially be too large to solve
like we could today. I believe that this cap-and-trade solution is the
way to go-- it is a way to limit Carbon Dioxide emissions for our
environment, and it could also stimulate our sluggish economy because
the United States would have to open many new greener energy
facilities. A cap-and-trade program seems like the right thing to do,
both for our economy and for the environment.
I don't think it is absolutely necessary for the United States to
commit to a global treaty to address climate change just yet-- as of
right now, it seems like we know the basics of what's happening and we
have a couple of ideas of how to prevent/fix it, but in reality, we
don't have much, if any, hardcore evidence telling us how to fix
global climate change just yet. If the United States did commit to a
global treaty to discuss climate change, we might completely misinform
people, to propose ways to "fix" climate change that would be
completely impossible for some countries because of the undeveloped
state some countries are in. It is true that climate change is a
problem, and it's absolutely true that we have to fix it, but the
strategies for fixing climate change would differ from one country to
the next because of dissimilar economic standings. In addition to
this, committing to a global treaty costs more than we can afford, and
it isn't something that we'd be able to do right now. In my opinion,
individual countries should be able to recognize climate change as a
problem, and devise their own ways to fix the problem based on the
state their country is in.
to attempt to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. First of
all, the United States has the greatest energy-to-population ratio, by
using over 20% of the world's energy with only 5% of the world's
population. These are rather ridiculous numbers, and something should
be done about them. We need to find a way to fix our environment by
helping reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The time to act is now-- what
people did years ago, not even knowing about the environment and
emitting large amounts of carbon dioxide, is affecting us today, so if
we don't start fixing our problem today, it's going to be a huge
problem in the future that could potentially be too large to solve
like we could today. I believe that this cap-and-trade solution is the
way to go-- it is a way to limit Carbon Dioxide emissions for our
environment, and it could also stimulate our sluggish economy because
the United States would have to open many new greener energy
facilities. A cap-and-trade program seems like the right thing to do,
both for our economy and for the environment.
I don't think it is absolutely necessary for the United States to
commit to a global treaty to address climate change just yet-- as of
right now, it seems like we know the basics of what's happening and we
have a couple of ideas of how to prevent/fix it, but in reality, we
don't have much, if any, hardcore evidence telling us how to fix
global climate change just yet. If the United States did commit to a
global treaty to discuss climate change, we might completely misinform
people, to propose ways to "fix" climate change that would be
completely impossible for some countries because of the undeveloped
state some countries are in. It is true that climate change is a
problem, and it's absolutely true that we have to fix it, but the
strategies for fixing climate change would differ from one country to
the next because of dissimilar economic standings. In addition to
this, committing to a global treaty costs more than we can afford, and
it isn't something that we'd be able to do right now. In my opinion,
individual countries should be able to recognize climate change as a
problem, and devise their own ways to fix the problem based on the
state their country is in.
Aish
Oct 14, 2009, 8:55:54 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
Yes, the government should impose a cap-and-trade program. They have
worked well in the past and they should work fine in the future as
well. For example, the Acid Rain Program (introduced in 1995), has
significantly reduced the emissions of SO2 (sulfur dioxide) and NOX
(nitrogen oxides). Using these cap and trade systems is fair and it
helps the market regulate itself. It also rewards businesses that are
more environmentally friendly, while allowing other businesses more
time to change their habits.
On the other hand, the US should not commit to a global treaty to
address climate change as of yet. We are still in a recession, and our
economy is still very fragile. If, for some reason, we are unable to
fulfill the stated requirements, sanctions and other punitive measures
imposed by other nations could hurt our economy. Furthermore, if we
look at Europe, there is no guarantee that the measures even worked.
How can we gamble with our economy when we aren't even sure if the
treaty will accomplish anything? Perhaps, in the near future, an
acceptable treaty could be negotiated, but right now I believe we
shouldn't sign an international treaty. Instead, we could just pass
legislature inside the US to the same effect. This way, if we somehow
can't meet the requirements we would be safe from other countries.
worked well in the past and they should work fine in the future as
well. For example, the Acid Rain Program (introduced in 1995), has
significantly reduced the emissions of SO2 (sulfur dioxide) and NOX
(nitrogen oxides). Using these cap and trade systems is fair and it
helps the market regulate itself. It also rewards businesses that are
more environmentally friendly, while allowing other businesses more
time to change their habits.
On the other hand, the US should not commit to a global treaty to
address climate change as of yet. We are still in a recession, and our
economy is still very fragile. If, for some reason, we are unable to
fulfill the stated requirements, sanctions and other punitive measures
imposed by other nations could hurt our economy. Furthermore, if we
look at Europe, there is no guarantee that the measures even worked.
How can we gamble with our economy when we aren't even sure if the
treaty will accomplish anything? Perhaps, in the near future, an
acceptable treaty could be negotiated, but right now I believe we
shouldn't sign an international treaty. Instead, we could just pass
legislature inside the US to the same effect. This way, if we somehow
can't meet the requirements we would be safe from other countries.
Spattni
Oct 14, 2009, 9:08:44 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I do not think the U.S. should impose a cap-and-trade program because
I do not believe it is a worthy enough solution. I do think, however,
that it can be a good transition on a more specified scale, such as
just larger businesses and corporations. I do believe that the cons:
it's too complex, companies don't have that money right now, and is
encouraging outsourcing to more lenient countries, this out weighs the
pros: supposed creation of 'green jobs' and efficiency in this
situation. It's already proven not to be as efficient or beneficial as
it seems, Europe is a prime example on why it's not as straight
forward as it looks. During Phase 1 (2005-2007) emissions actually
increased by 1.9%, and electricity bills have increased in many parts
of Europe have increased. Countries such as Germany have already
voiced concerns over the cap and trade and are reluctant to do so
because of the harshness on companies. Kyoto Protocol has not worked
because according to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
since 1990-2006, Germany up 18.5%, Spain 49.5%, and 9,9% in Italy. Not
to mention that U.S. citizens would not be happy with higher bills in
an already troubled economy. Therefore, I do not think that the cap
and trade program is a worthy enough solution to curb green house
gases but instead a good tranistion.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/Legal_Cap_Trade.pdf
I do believe that the U.S. should commit to a global treaty, but not
as a reluctant signer, but as a leading super power ready to take the
mantle on Climate Change. The Kyoto Protocol was worthy cause but the
U.S. never truly commit to it's requirements, and since then the U.S.
and the world have made reasonable progress, but as the expiration
date of 2012 approaches a new global treaty should come about. The
special thing about the U.S. that should make it lead and commit to a
global treaty is, we can get things done (and faster than the UN I
might add). As the strongest, wealthiest country in the world, the
U.S. has the resources (military and money), influence (leading
economy and super power), and leadership (Obama Administration) to
figure out a treaty that the itself and upcoming and leading powers
such as China and Europe can agree on. The U.S. is already got the
ball rolling by having a bill (ACES) in line for the Senate to vote
on, and have managed to paint a new image for the world about U.S.
goals and how we go about them achieving them. The way U.S. can go
about achieving goals, is unlike a bullish brute who just throws their
weight around like in Iraq and anywhere during the Bush era, but in a
composed, calm and firm way that can lead to success. Obama has
already proved this theory with a new nuclear proliferation agreement
at the UN summit and hardened dialogue with Iran. He voiced the U.S.
goals reasonably and made sure that he used both ears and one mouth. I
think that U.S. is ready to commit and lead a global treaty on Climate
Change, because frankly, the U.S. is capable of doing anything it
wants, when it pulls itself together.
I do not believe it is a worthy enough solution. I do think, however,
that it can be a good transition on a more specified scale, such as
just larger businesses and corporations. I do believe that the cons:
it's too complex, companies don't have that money right now, and is
encouraging outsourcing to more lenient countries, this out weighs the
pros: supposed creation of 'green jobs' and efficiency in this
situation. It's already proven not to be as efficient or beneficial as
it seems, Europe is a prime example on why it's not as straight
forward as it looks. During Phase 1 (2005-2007) emissions actually
increased by 1.9%, and electricity bills have increased in many parts
of Europe have increased. Countries such as Germany have already
voiced concerns over the cap and trade and are reluctant to do so
because of the harshness on companies. Kyoto Protocol has not worked
because according to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
since 1990-2006, Germany up 18.5%, Spain 49.5%, and 9,9% in Italy. Not
to mention that U.S. citizens would not be happy with higher bills in
an already troubled economy. Therefore, I do not think that the cap
and trade program is a worthy enough solution to curb green house
gases but instead a good tranistion.
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/Legal_Cap_Trade.pdf
I do believe that the U.S. should commit to a global treaty, but not
as a reluctant signer, but as a leading super power ready to take the
mantle on Climate Change. The Kyoto Protocol was worthy cause but the
U.S. never truly commit to it's requirements, and since then the U.S.
and the world have made reasonable progress, but as the expiration
date of 2012 approaches a new global treaty should come about. The
special thing about the U.S. that should make it lead and commit to a
global treaty is, we can get things done (and faster than the UN I
might add). As the strongest, wealthiest country in the world, the
U.S. has the resources (military and money), influence (leading
economy and super power), and leadership (Obama Administration) to
figure out a treaty that the itself and upcoming and leading powers
such as China and Europe can agree on. The U.S. is already got the
ball rolling by having a bill (ACES) in line for the Senate to vote
on, and have managed to paint a new image for the world about U.S.
goals and how we go about them achieving them. The way U.S. can go
about achieving goals, is unlike a bullish brute who just throws their
weight around like in Iraq and anywhere during the Bush era, but in a
composed, calm and firm way that can lead to success. Obama has
already proved this theory with a new nuclear proliferation agreement
at the UN summit and hardened dialogue with Iran. He voiced the U.S.
goals reasonably and made sure that he used both ears and one mouth. I
think that U.S. is ready to commit and lead a global treaty on Climate
Change, because frankly, the U.S. is capable of doing anything it
wants, when it pulls itself together.
Hannah
Oct 14, 2009, 9:37:25 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I deffinitely believe that the government should impose a cap-and-
trade system to curb greenhouse gas. With a cap-and-trade system, we
would be able to accurately regulate the amount of greenhouse gases
admitted. Although it may be potentially harmful to our economy, the
environment is an extemely crucial topic that needs to be dealt with
before a drastic change in the world's climate occurs. Also, the cap-
and-trade system works well internationally, not just for the U.S. In
the recent past, the cap-and-trade system has proven successful for
the most part as shown here: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085 .
According to the Economist, it is "probably the greenest success story
of the past decade." This shows that regardless of the economic
restrictions and other barriers, imposing a cap-and-trade system is
worth it, and will prove greatly reduce the emission of pollutants and
greenhouse gases, while doing so at a reasonable pace.
I do think that the US should commit to a global treaty to address
climate change. In order to effectively change directions to get to a
greener and cleaner earth, the entire world has to work together and
change their patterns habits together. The US is a huge factor so far
in putting the world in a better direction, therefore many other
countries would benefit from the US's help and influence in combating
environmental issues. Also, where as some people say that it is not
positive whether or not curbing emissions is really going to make a
difference, it is pretty obvious that it will. For example, in
Antarctica, polar bears are slowly dying out becasue of the lack of
ice. The thinning and melting of ice caps is extremely likely a result
of increased greenhouse gasses and carbon emissions. Although there is
always the very slight chance that nothing extreme will happen due to
this climate change, the direction we're currently heading in, without
a doubt, points to serious consequences. Therefore, a global treaty
will help move the entire world forward towards the goal of a cleaner
and greener earth.
trade system to curb greenhouse gas. With a cap-and-trade system, we
would be able to accurately regulate the amount of greenhouse gases
admitted. Although it may be potentially harmful to our economy, the
environment is an extemely crucial topic that needs to be dealt with
before a drastic change in the world's climate occurs. Also, the cap-
and-trade system works well internationally, not just for the U.S. In
the recent past, the cap-and-trade system has proven successful for
the most part as shown here: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085 .
According to the Economist, it is "probably the greenest success story
of the past decade." This shows that regardless of the economic
restrictions and other barriers, imposing a cap-and-trade system is
worth it, and will prove greatly reduce the emission of pollutants and
greenhouse gases, while doing so at a reasonable pace.
I do think that the US should commit to a global treaty to address
climate change. In order to effectively change directions to get to a
greener and cleaner earth, the entire world has to work together and
change their patterns habits together. The US is a huge factor so far
in putting the world in a better direction, therefore many other
countries would benefit from the US's help and influence in combating
environmental issues. Also, where as some people say that it is not
positive whether or not curbing emissions is really going to make a
difference, it is pretty obvious that it will. For example, in
Antarctica, polar bears are slowly dying out becasue of the lack of
ice. The thinning and melting of ice caps is extremely likely a result
of increased greenhouse gasses and carbon emissions. Although there is
always the very slight chance that nothing extreme will happen due to
this climate change, the direction we're currently heading in, without
a doubt, points to serious consequences. Therefore, a global treaty
will help move the entire world forward towards the goal of a cleaner
and greener earth.
James
Oct 14, 2009, 10:05:31 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I think that the government should definitely impose a cap-and-trade
system. This would help limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted
in the future. By making companies pay for emitting more than is safe
to the environment, it would become better for business to reduce
emissions. Critics of the system say that the system would fail and
just delay the process of developing alternative energy sources, but
the cap and trade system would help raise revenue for the government
while promoting the growth of alternative energy due to the raised
cost of polluting. Critics also say that it would fail to quickly
reduce greenhouse gases, but that is not the point of the cap- the cap
is to get polluters to lower emissions over time, while at the same
time raising money for the government to help sponsor new alternative
energies.
The government should most certainly commit to a global treaty to
address climate change. The US has only 5% of the world's population
but consumes over 20% of the world's produced energy, and if you
really think about it, it isn't exactly fair for us to do that and not
be following the rules on pollution that the rest of the world are.
As a world superpower, we have a duty to take leadership in this
growing problem, and how can we do that if we don't sign some sort of
international treaty? It makes us seem like hypocrites. Critics of
signing a treaty say that more studies need to be done to see if it is
worth the cost; but if we wait too much longer, it will be too late to
act if we are wrong. Paying higher costs now is definitely a better
option than living in a world where pollution and climate change has
changed the world for the worse with no way to undo the damage.
sami
Oct 14, 2009, 10:08:00 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I believe that America should take initiative on reducing Co2 levels
and impose a cap-and-trade program. This is the most cost effective
and market friendly way to reduce Co2 emissions within the U.S.
Instead of simply setting a cap and expecting all companies to emmit
levels below it, cap and trade gives a standard amount of credits to
every company that pollutes . Companies can sell any excess credits to
other companies that pollute above the cap. This method is very
effective in the long term because it encourages companies to use more
energy efficient technology so they can accumulate excess credits and
make some extra revenue. Some critics of the system may say that too
much government intervention can hinder the economy. Even if this were
true, we should value the future of our planet more then short term
economic interests. You can’t put a price on the lives of future
generations.
I also believe that the US should commit to a global treaty to curb
Co2 emissions. Although it has proven very hard to find compromises
between many of the countries involved in these treaties, we should
still continue to pursue one and commit ourselves towards lowering our
emissions. It is more effective to coordinate Co2 emission reductions
with the other major emitters in the world, because that way a set
goal can be established. It will be much more difficult to come up
with a realistic goal if individual countries are left to sort it out
themselves without having to commit to anything. One can see that
global treaties have worked very well in the past to solve global
environmental problems. The 1989 protocol in 1989 effectively
prohibited the use of CFC’s and prevented further damage to the ozone
layer.
and impose a cap-and-trade program. This is the most cost effective
and market friendly way to reduce Co2 emissions within the U.S.
Instead of simply setting a cap and expecting all companies to emmit
levels below it, cap and trade gives a standard amount of credits to
every company that pollutes . Companies can sell any excess credits to
other companies that pollute above the cap. This method is very
effective in the long term because it encourages companies to use more
energy efficient technology so they can accumulate excess credits and
make some extra revenue. Some critics of the system may say that too
much government intervention can hinder the economy. Even if this were
true, we should value the future of our planet more then short term
economic interests. You can’t put a price on the lives of future
generations.
I also believe that the US should commit to a global treaty to curb
Co2 emissions. Although it has proven very hard to find compromises
between many of the countries involved in these treaties, we should
still continue to pursue one and commit ourselves towards lowering our
emissions. It is more effective to coordinate Co2 emission reductions
with the other major emitters in the world, because that way a set
goal can be established. It will be much more difficult to come up
with a realistic goal if individual countries are left to sort it out
themselves without having to commit to anything. One can see that
global treaties have worked very well in the past to solve global
environmental problems. The 1989 protocol in 1989 effectively
prohibited the use of CFC’s and prevented further damage to the ozone
layer.
Kevin Xiao
Oct 14, 2009, 10:39:11 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I think that a cap and trade system would currently be the best way to
help reduce our emissions while also stimulate economic growth.
Through a cap and trade system, new businesses and industries are able
to arise, creating more green jobs. This promotes environmental
awareness and helps reduce our carbon emissions while also providing
new jobs. A cap in trade system has been shown to work, shown in 1990
by the Clean Air Act which helps improve the quality of our air by
removing harmful substances and protecting the ozone layer. The NOx
Budget Trading program, which was created in 2003, helped reduce the
amount of nitrogen oxides(smog) in the air. Companies which had low
emissions were able to sell emission allowances to other companies who
weren't as able, helping them while pressuring other companies to
lower emissions as well. Cap and trade systems are a simple yet
effective way to help already environmentally friendly companies while
pressuring companies with higher emissions to reduce them, all while
stimulating economic growth.
The United States shouldn't have to commit to a global treaty because
each country should have to deal with its own environmental issues.
While other countries affect the environment, it is their
responsibility to reduce their impact on the environment. The United
States should have some say and help support certain global programs,
but it does not necessarily have to limit itself or aim for general
expectations. Environmental issues are depend on the country. China's
problems may be different from America's which may be different from
France's. If America can successfully handle it's environmental
problems, then it will have an impact on the world as well.
help reduce our emissions while also stimulate economic growth.
Through a cap and trade system, new businesses and industries are able
to arise, creating more green jobs. This promotes environmental
awareness and helps reduce our carbon emissions while also providing
new jobs. A cap in trade system has been shown to work, shown in 1990
by the Clean Air Act which helps improve the quality of our air by
removing harmful substances and protecting the ozone layer. The NOx
Budget Trading program, which was created in 2003, helped reduce the
amount of nitrogen oxides(smog) in the air. Companies which had low
emissions were able to sell emission allowances to other companies who
weren't as able, helping them while pressuring other companies to
lower emissions as well. Cap and trade systems are a simple yet
effective way to help already environmentally friendly companies while
pressuring companies with higher emissions to reduce them, all while
stimulating economic growth.
The United States shouldn't have to commit to a global treaty because
each country should have to deal with its own environmental issues.
While other countries affect the environment, it is their
responsibility to reduce their impact on the environment. The United
States should have some say and help support certain global programs,
but it does not necessarily have to limit itself or aim for general
expectations. Environmental issues are depend on the country. China's
problems may be different from America's which may be different from
France's. If America can successfully handle it's environmental
problems, then it will have an impact on the world as well.
Amy
Oct 14, 2009, 11:13:29 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I do think that the government should impose a cap-and-trade program
in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emission. I feel slightly unsure
in saying this, considering that I don't know enough about the topic
to have a definite opinion. However, cap-and-trade has been proven to
work before, exemplified in the cases of the Acid Rain Program and the
NOx Budget Trading Program. Cap and trade encourages the right things,
like wanting to have a smaller amout of gas emission so a company can
make profit off of extra credits. The opposite is also true. It
discourages emitting more greenhouse gases than encouraged because of
the cost to a company caused by buying more credits. The addition of
jobs is an extra plus, especially in a struggling economy. However,
there is a possibility that cap-and-trade works on paper and proves to
be more complex in reality. I think that with proper planning cap-and-
trade has all the potential to work, and it should be implemented with
that planning.
I don't believe that the U.S., or any country, should have to sign a
global treaty. International pressure to cut down greenhouse gases is
certainly an excellent idea, but global treaties are too binding to
apply to a large number of countries. Every nation has different
environmental weaknesses and very different situations to deal with in
order to address these weaknesses. There is also the very real
possibility that a new factor such as a change in government or severe
natural disasters could interfere with a country's efforts to reduce
greenhouse gases. Global treaties hold every country to the same
standard in a world full of diverse nations. This is a good thing in
some senses, but it also can be viewed as inefficient because it's
likely that no real positive results will take place. For example,
greenhouse gas emissions in the UK have increased 2% in the last 12
years, despite their promise to reduce 20% by next year. There is no
guarantee that global treaties are efficient or even worth the
potential risk to our economy.
in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emission. I feel slightly unsure
in saying this, considering that I don't know enough about the topic
to have a definite opinion. However, cap-and-trade has been proven to
work before, exemplified in the cases of the Acid Rain Program and the
NOx Budget Trading Program. Cap and trade encourages the right things,
like wanting to have a smaller amout of gas emission so a company can
make profit off of extra credits. The opposite is also true. It
discourages emitting more greenhouse gases than encouraged because of
the cost to a company caused by buying more credits. The addition of
jobs is an extra plus, especially in a struggling economy. However,
there is a possibility that cap-and-trade works on paper and proves to
be more complex in reality. I think that with proper planning cap-and-
trade has all the potential to work, and it should be implemented with
that planning.
I don't believe that the U.S., or any country, should have to sign a
global treaty. International pressure to cut down greenhouse gases is
certainly an excellent idea, but global treaties are too binding to
apply to a large number of countries. Every nation has different
environmental weaknesses and very different situations to deal with in
order to address these weaknesses. There is also the very real
possibility that a new factor such as a change in government or severe
natural disasters could interfere with a country's efforts to reduce
greenhouse gases. Global treaties hold every country to the same
standard in a world full of diverse nations. This is a good thing in
some senses, but it also can be viewed as inefficient because it's
likely that no real positive results will take place. For example,
greenhouse gas emissions in the UK have increased 2% in the last 12
years, despite their promise to reduce 20% by next year. There is no
guarantee that global treaties are efficient or even worth the
potential risk to our economy.
abol...@yahoo.com
Oct 14, 2009, 11:33:36 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I believe that the government should impose a cap-and-trade program
because this type of program has been effective in the past and I
think that it will continue to be effective and will have an overall
positive effect on the environment. A cap-and-trade system would be
effective because it will not only help to curb greenhouse gasses, it
will also create good relations internationally and cause economic
benefits for a while by creating the "green jobs" and help promote the
creation of the green industry. The US is currently using 20% of the
world's energy, however we only consume 5% of the world's population;
evidently we are a major contributor to our environmental problems,
therefore we need to be the ones to take action. This program would be
very market-friendly, it will create new "green" jobs, and it has been
proven effective by the Clean Air Act of 1990. This cap-and-trade
would be a beneficial solution both economically and environmentally.
I think the US should commit to a global treaty to address climate
change, because global warming and the environmental situation with
greenhouse gasses are both becoming a major issue that can effect the
whole world both economically and climatically. I think global
meetings would be effective because the whole world is being effected
by the greenhouse gasses, and even if the US fixed its problems, the
entire atmosphere would still have problems from the other countries.
The US is a highly influential and powerful country in the world today
and signing a global treaty would be an important move that would be
seen positively by other countries. As a huge power throughout the
world, the US signing a treaty could benefit not only us, but create a
pathway for other countries as well. Being as strong a country as we
are, I think we could manage to take some control of the creation of
more treaties in the future that could also help create a better
environmental situation. By committing to the global treaty we could
make sure the treaties are beneficial to all other countries while
also monitoring the progress of the treaty closer. I think that in the
long run, having as an important member of the treaty as the US would
benefit the world.
because this type of program has been effective in the past and I
think that it will continue to be effective and will have an overall
positive effect on the environment. A cap-and-trade system would be
effective because it will not only help to curb greenhouse gasses, it
will also create good relations internationally and cause economic
benefits for a while by creating the "green jobs" and help promote the
creation of the green industry. The US is currently using 20% of the
world's energy, however we only consume 5% of the world's population;
evidently we are a major contributor to our environmental problems,
therefore we need to be the ones to take action. This program would be
very market-friendly, it will create new "green" jobs, and it has been
proven effective by the Clean Air Act of 1990. This cap-and-trade
would be a beneficial solution both economically and environmentally.
I think the US should commit to a global treaty to address climate
change, because global warming and the environmental situation with
greenhouse gasses are both becoming a major issue that can effect the
whole world both economically and climatically. I think global
meetings would be effective because the whole world is being effected
by the greenhouse gasses, and even if the US fixed its problems, the
entire atmosphere would still have problems from the other countries.
The US is a highly influential and powerful country in the world today
and signing a global treaty would be an important move that would be
seen positively by other countries. As a huge power throughout the
world, the US signing a treaty could benefit not only us, but create a
pathway for other countries as well. Being as strong a country as we
are, I think we could manage to take some control of the creation of
more treaties in the future that could also help create a better
environmental situation. By committing to the global treaty we could
make sure the treaties are beneficial to all other countries while
also monitoring the progress of the treaty closer. I think that in the
long run, having as an important member of the treaty as the US would
benefit the world.
Mike Stavrakos
Oct 14, 2009, 11:34:20 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I do not believe that the government should impose a cap-and-trade
program in order to curb greenhouse gas. It seems as though the
problems with a cap-and-trade program are much more detrimental than
the possible solutions from it. First, proponents of such programs
apparently say that it is a market friendly solution, but I would have
to disagree. I feel as though the penalties and costs that
corporations would have to pay for their emissions would be transfered
to the consumer through energy prices. This would be very detrimental
to households across the country especially with the current
struggling economy. Second, if strict rules were imposed regarding
cap-and-trade and emissions, companies that would not be able to
adjust technologically or financially may be unintentionally forced
out of the country, sending jobs overseas. Both of these examples
occurred in Europe, who's cap-and-trade programs largely failed, and
have cost billions of dollars. In Germany, the caps have caused
homeowners to pay, on average, 25% more for energy. Also, in the
Netherlands, clients of corporations turned to products of other
countries such as China who sold their products at a cheaper price
because there were no restrictions on their factories. (http://
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14411)
I also do not believe that the United States should commit to a global
treaty to address climate change. I feel that these types of binding
agreements are not what is in the interest of the United States to
enter into. A binding agreement would be an unnecessary risk at the
moment because we are not sure if such treaties would be worthy of the
likely large amount of money spent on them. It can be seen through
European countries that entered into the Kyoto Protocol that there
were great economic damages, and few environmental advancements that
resulted from changes made to the governments' energy policies. Also,
it is almost unreasonable to have a binding global treaty that would
exempt growing countries from the regulations. While it makes sense
that these countries are still growing technologically, and are
discovering new forms of energy and emissions control, it would be
unfair to put rules upon the U.S. that don't apply equally to
countries such as China and India, and it would also be economically
harmful for the U.S. to have to compensate for the large amount of
emissions released by these countries.
program in order to curb greenhouse gas. It seems as though the
problems with a cap-and-trade program are much more detrimental than
the possible solutions from it. First, proponents of such programs
apparently say that it is a market friendly solution, but I would have
to disagree. I feel as though the penalties and costs that
corporations would have to pay for their emissions would be transfered
to the consumer through energy prices. This would be very detrimental
to households across the country especially with the current
struggling economy. Second, if strict rules were imposed regarding
cap-and-trade and emissions, companies that would not be able to
adjust technologically or financially may be unintentionally forced
out of the country, sending jobs overseas. Both of these examples
occurred in Europe, who's cap-and-trade programs largely failed, and
have cost billions of dollars. In Germany, the caps have caused
homeowners to pay, on average, 25% more for energy. Also, in the
Netherlands, clients of corporations turned to products of other
countries such as China who sold their products at a cheaper price
because there were no restrictions on their factories. (http://
www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=14411)
I also do not believe that the United States should commit to a global
treaty to address climate change. I feel that these types of binding
agreements are not what is in the interest of the United States to
enter into. A binding agreement would be an unnecessary risk at the
moment because we are not sure if such treaties would be worthy of the
likely large amount of money spent on them. It can be seen through
European countries that entered into the Kyoto Protocol that there
were great economic damages, and few environmental advancements that
resulted from changes made to the governments' energy policies. Also,
it is almost unreasonable to have a binding global treaty that would
exempt growing countries from the regulations. While it makes sense
that these countries are still growing technologically, and are
discovering new forms of energy and emissions control, it would be
unfair to put rules upon the U.S. that don't apply equally to
countries such as China and India, and it would also be economically
harmful for the U.S. to have to compensate for the large amount of
emissions released by these countries.
Brendan
Oct 14, 2009, 11:47:12 PM10/14/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I think that the Government should implement a cap-and-trade program
to curb greenhouse gasses because it contains both negative and
positive reinforcement for reducing GHG's. For the countries that
cannot meet the requirements of emmisions they must buy credits from
companies that are exceding the emision reduction requirements,
causing it to be more expensive to be to polluting. At the same time
the "greener" companies that sell their credits receive money for
being "green".
I think the US should commit to a treaty to address climate change
because climate change is not something that one country alone can
solve even if it is the US. Even if the US itself does reduce
emmisions the rappidly growing countries such as China and India
negate those efforts if they too aren't working together to fix the
environment. Also climate change is a serious danger that has major
concequences if not adressed properly. It has been agreed on by
scientists around the world that any more global climate change be
even as little as 3 degrees fahrenheit could cause irriversable
effects on the planet, change in weather patterns, flooding of costal
areas, and extinction of species.
to curb greenhouse gasses because it contains both negative and
positive reinforcement for reducing GHG's. For the countries that
cannot meet the requirements of emmisions they must buy credits from
companies that are exceding the emision reduction requirements,
causing it to be more expensive to be to polluting. At the same time
the "greener" companies that sell their credits receive money for
being "green".
I think the US should commit to a treaty to address climate change
because climate change is not something that one country alone can
solve even if it is the US. Even if the US itself does reduce
emmisions the rappidly growing countries such as China and India
negate those efforts if they too aren't working together to fix the
environment. Also climate change is a serious danger that has major
concequences if not adressed properly. It has been agreed on by
scientists around the world that any more global climate change be
even as little as 3 degrees fahrenheit could cause irriversable
effects on the planet, change in weather patterns, flooding of costal
areas, and extinction of species.
bridget
Oct 15, 2009, 12:07:47 AM10/15/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
Yes the government should impose a cap-and-trade program to curb
greenhouse gas. Similar programs have been used in the past and been
successful such as the Clean Air Act which reduced acid rain. The cap-
and-trade method is one that is already proven and because it has been
done before would probably have widespread support. Cap-and-trade
programs might slow the development of alternative energy sources but
in the long run the new sources of energy would be more cost effective
for large corporations because they would be the ones funding there
research. But any cap-and-trade program that would be put in place
must not have strict guidelines that would force companies to move
overseas. The program would have to be long term and slowly force
companies to reduce emissions so that the cost of moving overseas
verse the cost of slowly becoming more energy efficient would be low.
But a cap-and-trade program alone would not solve the problem.
Significant tax incentives for companies that strive to go green and
cut their emissions would also need to be put in place. This would
reward the companies that are attempting to lower their impact and it
would encourage companies that are not making the effort to lower
emission to do so and encourage them to stay in the US at the same
time. Before we can try to work with other countries to lower the
global levels of greenhouse gases we must work to lower them in our
own country.
Yes the US should sign an international treaty on climate change but
not any treaty like the ones purposed now. Any treaty that the US
signs must have some punishment for not meeting it’s conditions but it
also must force developing countries to abide by the same
restrictions. Any treaties that the US signs must also force China and
India to cut emission; they are in the perfect place to do so now as
they are building their infrastructure. If the treaty that the US
signs has clauses that encourage developing countries to be green from
the start it will prevent the world from being in an even worse state
in 10 or 15 years but with China and India as the major polluters not
the US. Global climate change is a problem that affects every country
and will solve itself; if a treaty could be proposed that every
country could agree to the affects would be enormous and the US must
be part of it.
Shannon
Oct 15, 2009, 1:28:14 AM10/15/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
The government should impose a cap-and-trade program to curb
greenhouse gases. These greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide, trap heat within the atmosphere creating
global climate change. This global climate change has increased the
average global temperature by 1.4 degrees, which throws off all
climates and the inhabitants that live in them. That is why it is
critical to begin the cap-and-trade system, even though it's
controversial for giving 85% of carbon emissions alliances to
industries for free. The price of us destroying our earth, is harder
to fix and more a global issue than decreased wages. Cap-and-trade has
begun in Europe, and though it was highly critized, any impact on the
environment can make a huge difference in the long run. But Cap-and-
trade would create jobs too; some may even say a whole working class,
(green-collar jobs). In order for the cap-and-trade system to work
out, there would need to be a lot of positive propaganda about it,
government strict reinforcements, and of course, increase of taxes. If
those requirements are done, then not only environmental, but economic
benefits will be resulted from too.
The US should commit to a global treaty to address climate change, but
it needs to be an edit of a current one or a new one should be
created. Though the U.S is one of the leading countries with the
biggest carbon foot print and greenhouse gases emissions, many other
countries, like China and India, have similar reputations and data.
But global treaties are great ways to get the whole world’s attention
to the world itself. Some examples would be the Kyoto Protocol, Bali
climate change conference in 2007, Montreal Protocol, and the G-20
summit in the summer of 2009. At all of these world conferences they
tried to discuss and create new treaties to help the environment and
our ozone/atmosphere. If the US commits to being an active advocate of
global treaties to combate global climat change, it will not only help
out the US in the long run, but also the entire world.
greenhouse gases. These greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide, trap heat within the atmosphere creating
global climate change. This global climate change has increased the
average global temperature by 1.4 degrees, which throws off all
climates and the inhabitants that live in them. That is why it is
critical to begin the cap-and-trade system, even though it's
controversial for giving 85% of carbon emissions alliances to
industries for free. The price of us destroying our earth, is harder
to fix and more a global issue than decreased wages. Cap-and-trade has
begun in Europe, and though it was highly critized, any impact on the
environment can make a huge difference in the long run. But Cap-and-
trade would create jobs too; some may even say a whole working class,
(green-collar jobs). In order for the cap-and-trade system to work
out, there would need to be a lot of positive propaganda about it,
government strict reinforcements, and of course, increase of taxes. If
those requirements are done, then not only environmental, but economic
benefits will be resulted from too.
The US should commit to a global treaty to address climate change, but
it needs to be an edit of a current one or a new one should be
created. Though the U.S is one of the leading countries with the
biggest carbon foot print and greenhouse gases emissions, many other
countries, like China and India, have similar reputations and data.
But global treaties are great ways to get the whole world’s attention
to the world itself. Some examples would be the Kyoto Protocol, Bali
climate change conference in 2007, Montreal Protocol, and the G-20
summit in the summer of 2009. At all of these world conferences they
tried to discuss and create new treaties to help the environment and
our ozone/atmosphere. If the US commits to being an active advocate of
global treaties to combate global climat change, it will not only help
out the US in the long run, but also the entire world.
Emma Burke
Oct 15, 2009, 8:56:33 AM10/15/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
A cap-and-trade program is a way to cut down global emissions. This
program would provide economic incentives to bring down emissions of
different pollutants. Also countries have an option to reduce
emissions on their own or buy, sell, or trade them with other
countries. I think this is good idea because anyway that the world can
work to reduce pollutants is beneficial for the whole world. When the
world is working toward a "greener" planet, there will innovation in
new technologies and industries. Also, countries can form new
alliances because of the trading aspect of this program. An example of
this is the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was created in 1997 and
put into effect in 2005. Under the treaty, for the 5-year compliance
period from 2008 until 2012, nations that emit less than their quota
will be able to sell emissions credits to nations that exceed their
quota. This exemplifies the teamwork aspect of working to help the
environment that will be created by a cap-and-trade program. This
teamwork and trade will form new alliances between nations. Therefore,
a cap-and trade program would not only benefit the earth, but foreign
relationship.
I think that a global treaty to address climate change would have a
very positive effect on the Earth. Scientists cannot deny the facts
that the Earth’s climate is changing because of the way us as a people
have been treating it. Emitting pollutants has been a key problem
causing the planet to change. Because the United States is one of the
world’s largest polluter I think that we have a responsibility to
commit to a global climate change treaty. Climate change is a very
important issue that needs to be addressed as soon as possible, and
making a commitment to work to change the environment is a great
effort to make. Also, other countries may follow the U.S.’s example
and sign the treaty as well. If the world is working together to find
alternative fuels, working toward innovative technologies, and cutting
down on emitting pollutants then the climate may see a positive
change. An example of this is that in December 2009, there will be
negotiations in Copenhagen regarding a global climate change treaty.
The Obama administration is pressing China, India, Brazil and other
major developing nations to agree to take mandatory actions as part of
a global treaty to reduce emissions. This is different to the Kyoto
Protocol, which does not require developing countries to cut down on
pollution. And on July 28, 2009, China and the U.S. signed a pledge
saying that they will redouble their efforts to create a new climate
change treaty, both countries did not sign the Kyoto Protocol.
program would provide economic incentives to bring down emissions of
different pollutants. Also countries have an option to reduce
emissions on their own or buy, sell, or trade them with other
countries. I think this is good idea because anyway that the world can
work to reduce pollutants is beneficial for the whole world. When the
world is working toward a "greener" planet, there will innovation in
new technologies and industries. Also, countries can form new
alliances because of the trading aspect of this program. An example of
this is the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was created in 1997 and
put into effect in 2005. Under the treaty, for the 5-year compliance
period from 2008 until 2012, nations that emit less than their quota
will be able to sell emissions credits to nations that exceed their
quota. This exemplifies the teamwork aspect of working to help the
environment that will be created by a cap-and-trade program. This
teamwork and trade will form new alliances between nations. Therefore,
a cap-and trade program would not only benefit the earth, but foreign
relationship.
I think that a global treaty to address climate change would have a
very positive effect on the Earth. Scientists cannot deny the facts
that the Earth’s climate is changing because of the way us as a people
have been treating it. Emitting pollutants has been a key problem
causing the planet to change. Because the United States is one of the
world’s largest polluter I think that we have a responsibility to
commit to a global climate change treaty. Climate change is a very
important issue that needs to be addressed as soon as possible, and
making a commitment to work to change the environment is a great
effort to make. Also, other countries may follow the U.S.’s example
and sign the treaty as well. If the world is working together to find
alternative fuels, working toward innovative technologies, and cutting
down on emitting pollutants then the climate may see a positive
change. An example of this is that in December 2009, there will be
negotiations in Copenhagen regarding a global climate change treaty.
The Obama administration is pressing China, India, Brazil and other
major developing nations to agree to take mandatory actions as part of
a global treaty to reduce emissions. This is different to the Kyoto
Protocol, which does not require developing countries to cut down on
pollution. And on July 28, 2009, China and the U.S. signed a pledge
saying that they will redouble their efforts to create a new climate
change treaty, both countries did not sign the Kyoto Protocol.
fv
Oct 15, 2009, 8:57:51 AM10/15/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I do not beleive that the government should employ a cap and trade
program but should not commit to a global treaty. The cap and trade
will allow us to lower our emissions in a way that is flexible to our
situation. The treaty could possibly impose stricter regulations and
hold us back in areas that are unnecessary. The treaty is to much of
a commitment and is not what we need. We are still a fast growing
country and we need as much flexibility as we can afford. Perhaps
instead of a treaty we could impose environmental sanctions on certain
countries that are severly affecting our environmental condition. For
example China is putting out enough harmful emissions to make up for
all of our advances towards a greener way of life. If we can regulate
the emissions from countries such as china then our work toward a
healthier world would be helped very much
program but should not commit to a global treaty. The cap and trade
will allow us to lower our emissions in a way that is flexible to our
situation. The treaty could possibly impose stricter regulations and
hold us back in areas that are unnecessary. The treaty is to much of
a commitment and is not what we need. We are still a fast growing
country and we need as much flexibility as we can afford. Perhaps
instead of a treaty we could impose environmental sanctions on certain
countries that are severly affecting our environmental condition. For
example China is putting out enough harmful emissions to make up for
all of our advances towards a greener way of life. If we can regulate
the emissions from countries such as china then our work toward a
healthier world would be helped very much
Me
Oct 15, 2009, 9:25:05 AM10/15/09
to rhs-globa...@googlegroups.com
The US should impose cap and trade. Unlike most things in politics the
environment isn't something one looks for personal gain in. You can't
make deals with the Earth and there are no negotiations. This is not
government vs. people or country vs. country, it's society vs. planet.
In this type of situation cap and trade is exactly what the government
should be doing, laying down the law and distinguishing what's right
from what's wrong. Their are laws against stealing, so why not
polluting. They may be very different issues, but both are wrong.
Critics say that this encourages dishonesty, but nobody creates a rule
just to provoke someone to break it. That's along the lines of
installing a security system, so that your neighbor will be robbed. If
a person can be fined for litering, why shouldn't a company? The US
should commit to a global treaty to address climate change. The US is
constantly acting unilaterally, boasting about being police of the
world, and flashing aroun money when donating, but when they are asked
for help, they are unwilling to commit. Even with individual states
signing it looks like a weak effort. This country is the "united"
states of America, and to be completely honest a lot of Americas power
is the name. We can brand the US onto things like the war on terror,
but we can't add it to the global treaty to address climate change?
Theodore Roosevelt must be rolling over in his grave. Roosevelt open
up a huge amount of "green collar" jobs creating parks to preserve our
national resources. There is no way he would like America going from
an icon of freedom and progress to an icon of smoke stacks and oil
leeches.
environment isn't something one looks for personal gain in. You can't
make deals with the Earth and there are no negotiations. This is not
government vs. people or country vs. country, it's society vs. planet.
In this type of situation cap and trade is exactly what the government
should be doing, laying down the law and distinguishing what's right
from what's wrong. Their are laws against stealing, so why not
polluting. They may be very different issues, but both are wrong.
Critics say that this encourages dishonesty, but nobody creates a rule
just to provoke someone to break it. That's along the lines of
installing a security system, so that your neighbor will be robbed. If
a person can be fined for litering, why shouldn't a company? The US
should commit to a global treaty to address climate change. The US is
constantly acting unilaterally, boasting about being police of the
world, and flashing aroun money when donating, but when they are asked
for help, they are unwilling to commit. Even with individual states
signing it looks like a weak effort. This country is the "united"
states of America, and to be completely honest a lot of Americas power
is the name. We can brand the US onto things like the war on terror,
but we can't add it to the global treaty to address climate change?
Theodore Roosevelt must be rolling over in his grave. Roosevelt open
up a huge amount of "green collar" jobs creating parks to preserve our
national resources. There is no way he would like America going from
an icon of freedom and progress to an icon of smoke stacks and oil
leeches.
Sam
Oct 15, 2009, 9:27:05 AM10/15/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
I do not think that the United States should impose a cap and trade
system. I do not think that there is enough support for the cause that
could force the US into partaking in it. The cap and trade system
would cause some companies to pay for the emissions that they release,
but some companies do not have the option of not releasing those
gasses. Also because companies would have to pay for the emissions
that they release it could cause companies to go bankrupt which could
ultimately but an economic burden on the country because it is very
likely that it would happen to companies such as steel and coal that
our economy thrives off of. There is also proof that the cap and trade
system does not even work because in Europe where the Kyoto Protocol
has not worked at all, there has just been a lot of money spent with
very minimal results. The cap and trade system is too complex,
unnecessary, and economically burdening to be used by the UNited
States. I do not think that they cap and trade system is a good idea
at all.
I do the UNited states should sign a global treaty adressing climate
change because climate change is a problem that effects the entire
world not just certain regions. I believe though that the United
States should be the leader of the project because the UNited states
is the face now of globalization they would have to be the leaders to
ensure goals became accomplished. If climate change is not adressed
throught the world, the ozone layer will continue to depleate and the
death toll in the world will rise. ALso the changing climate is
potentially affecting many companies and businesses all over the world
that the United States have ties with. If those companies are
destroyed many of the United States' international resources could
stop coming in which would not be good at all for us. I also think
that a global treaty would be an easy treaty in which most countries
would want to sign, because it is not focused on religion, war, or
money, so it is in favor of most countries. Global climate change is
affecting the entire world so most countries in the world would want
to sign this treaty making it easier for goals to get accomplished.
The United states should partake in a global treaty to stop global
climate change and also take the lead role in the project because
global climate change is a problem that is affecting the entire world
that needs to be stopped.
system. I do not think that there is enough support for the cause that
could force the US into partaking in it. The cap and trade system
would cause some companies to pay for the emissions that they release,
but some companies do not have the option of not releasing those
gasses. Also because companies would have to pay for the emissions
that they release it could cause companies to go bankrupt which could
ultimately but an economic burden on the country because it is very
likely that it would happen to companies such as steel and coal that
our economy thrives off of. There is also proof that the cap and trade
system does not even work because in Europe where the Kyoto Protocol
has not worked at all, there has just been a lot of money spent with
very minimal results. The cap and trade system is too complex,
unnecessary, and economically burdening to be used by the UNited
States. I do not think that they cap and trade system is a good idea
at all.
I do the UNited states should sign a global treaty adressing climate
change because climate change is a problem that effects the entire
world not just certain regions. I believe though that the United
States should be the leader of the project because the UNited states
is the face now of globalization they would have to be the leaders to
ensure goals became accomplished. If climate change is not adressed
throught the world, the ozone layer will continue to depleate and the
death toll in the world will rise. ALso the changing climate is
potentially affecting many companies and businesses all over the world
that the United States have ties with. If those companies are
destroyed many of the United States' international resources could
stop coming in which would not be good at all for us. I also think
that a global treaty would be an easy treaty in which most countries
would want to sign, because it is not focused on religion, war, or
money, so it is in favor of most countries. Global climate change is
affecting the entire world so most countries in the world would want
to sign this treaty making it easier for goals to get accomplished.
The United states should partake in a global treaty to stop global
climate change and also take the lead role in the project because
global climate change is a problem that is affecting the entire world
that needs to be stopped.
On Oct 14, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:
Shannon Neeson
Oct 15, 2009, 11:07:04 AM10/15/09
to rhs-globa...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
This is Shannon's mom here. Something went kaflooey with Shannon's e-mail
last night. For some reason,
her default e-mail program went from Outlook Express to Outlook, so her
Inbox was totally empty. I've just
spent the last 1/2 hour getting everything re-configured. I'm just letting
you know as I see a long e-mail
discussion from last night, and I don't believe she saw this. Unless it was
actually going through Google groups.
Thanks,
Marla Neeson
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 4501 (20091012) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
alyssa norton
Oct 15, 2009, 2:17:05 PM10/15/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
Hi Mr. Jaskelewicz! Sorry for the late response I am sick!!
I do believe that the government should impose a cap-and-trade
program. Whether or not people acknowledge that global warming is
happening nobody can deny that it is affecting our earth negatively.
In 2006, the US released 20.2% of the world's annual carbon dioxide
emissions second only to China's 21.5%. As one of the largest emitters
of carbon dioxide it is the US's duty to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions, especially since their are many other up-and-coming
economic powers (like India) that will also be emitting a large amount
of carbon dioxide. A cap-and-trade would allow businesses to benefit
from making their businesses greener rather than just forcing them to
do so. It would also set a good example to other developing countries,
particularly because the US was the only industrialized nation to not
sign the Kyoto Protocol. Even if it will only make a minor
environmental impact, it will be beneficial. For these reasons, I
believe that the government should impose a cap-and-trade program.
I do believe that the US should commit to a global treaty to address
climate change. Climate change could have very damaging effects in the
future and we have already seen some of them throughout the world. It
is a worldwide problem and as I stated before, we are responsible for
20% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions therefore making it even
more of a responsibility for us. It is an issue that cannot be
ignored, especially by the US. A global treaty would establish a
stricter plan in reducing greenhouse gases which would potentially
make a huge difference in the issue. With an issue that in just a
matter of years could turn lethal a stricter program is exactly what
the world needs. If we can have support from all major global powers,
developing countries will follow. Although America, isn't in its
economic prime, that does not give us an excuse to ignore this issue.
It is important for the US to acknowledge the problems we have caused
and acknowledge that we can play a big part in fixing them. In
conclusion, the US should both impose a cap-and-trade program as well
as sign a global treaty.
I do believe that the government should impose a cap-and-trade
program. Whether or not people acknowledge that global warming is
happening nobody can deny that it is affecting our earth negatively.
In 2006, the US released 20.2% of the world's annual carbon dioxide
emissions second only to China's 21.5%. As one of the largest emitters
of carbon dioxide it is the US's duty to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions, especially since their are many other up-and-coming
economic powers (like India) that will also be emitting a large amount
of carbon dioxide. A cap-and-trade would allow businesses to benefit
from making their businesses greener rather than just forcing them to
do so. It would also set a good example to other developing countries,
particularly because the US was the only industrialized nation to not
sign the Kyoto Protocol. Even if it will only make a minor
environmental impact, it will be beneficial. For these reasons, I
believe that the government should impose a cap-and-trade program.
I do believe that the US should commit to a global treaty to address
climate change. Climate change could have very damaging effects in the
future and we have already seen some of them throughout the world. It
is a worldwide problem and as I stated before, we are responsible for
20% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions therefore making it even
more of a responsibility for us. It is an issue that cannot be
ignored, especially by the US. A global treaty would establish a
stricter plan in reducing greenhouse gases which would potentially
make a huge difference in the issue. With an issue that in just a
matter of years could turn lethal a stricter program is exactly what
the world needs. If we can have support from all major global powers,
developing countries will follow. Although America, isn't in its
economic prime, that does not give us an excuse to ignore this issue.
It is important for the US to acknowledge the problems we have caused
and acknowledge that we can play a big part in fixing them. In
conclusion, the US should both impose a cap-and-trade program as well
as sign a global treaty.
Sibtain Bokhari
Oct 15, 2009, 6:44:12 PM10/15/09
to RHS GLOBAL ISSUES
Sorry it's late Mr. Jaskelwicz, i was sick yesterday and for most of
today.
I do not think that the government should impose a cap-and-trade
program i curb greenhouse gasses. i think this because of the
inability to change that we currently have. In order for this to work,
we would have to cut down production in most of the large factories.
The book says that companies such as steel cannot do this, because of
the demand for steel, and they do not have the money to cut down
emissions. If this is passed, the companies that cannot comply with
the new regulations will move to other countries so that they can
continue to do their work as normal. This will increase the number of
unemployed people in our country. Also, according to the Kansas City
Business Journal, if the government imposes this before we have the
technology available to cost-effectively cut down emissions, the
resulting effect could likely reflect onto the people and increase
energy prices.
If the US was to commit to a global treaty to address climate change,
it may make us look better in the eyes of other nations. Our image was
hurt because both President Clinton and President Bush did not sign
and join in on the Kyoto Treaty. The US will face problems if it was
to commit to a global treaty. If we do commit to cut down on gasoline
consumption, then this will not be agreed with by large factories and
citizens. If we do not have oil, cars cannot be used much, and
factories will not be able to produce as much as before, because of
the lack of oil. Another problem that the US would face is that if we
decreased the amount of oil we are purchasing, places like Suadi
Arabia would either suffer economically, or they would become angry
with the US, because we are one of their major buyers. I think that we
should not commit to a global treaty because of the problems that we
would face by doing so.
today.
I do not think that the government should impose a cap-and-trade
program i curb greenhouse gasses. i think this because of the
inability to change that we currently have. In order for this to work,
we would have to cut down production in most of the large factories.
The book says that companies such as steel cannot do this, because of
the demand for steel, and they do not have the money to cut down
emissions. If this is passed, the companies that cannot comply with
the new regulations will move to other countries so that they can
continue to do their work as normal. This will increase the number of
unemployed people in our country. Also, according to the Kansas City
Business Journal, if the government imposes this before we have the
technology available to cost-effectively cut down emissions, the
resulting effect could likely reflect onto the people and increase
energy prices.
If the US was to commit to a global treaty to address climate change,
it may make us look better in the eyes of other nations. Our image was
hurt because both President Clinton and President Bush did not sign
and join in on the Kyoto Treaty. The US will face problems if it was
to commit to a global treaty. If we do commit to cut down on gasoline
consumption, then this will not be agreed with by large factories and
citizens. If we do not have oil, cars cannot be used much, and
factories will not be able to produce as much as before, because of
the lack of oil. Another problem that the US would face is that if we
decreased the amount of oil we are purchasing, places like Suadi
Arabia would either suffer economically, or they would become angry
with the US, because we are one of their major buyers. I think that we
should not commit to a global treaty because of the problems that we
would face by doing so.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages