Energy and Environment Discussion Questions (Due Wednesday 10/20)

[Mr. J.]

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.

[Christine]

I believe that in the long run, protecting the environment and the
earth on which we live on, is more important than countries' economy
and development. I believe that the government should impose a cap-and-
trade program to curb greenhouse gases. This means that industries are
allowed a certain percentage of emission of gases and must pay or
auction the other percentage. Right now, it is said that industries
would receive 85% free emissions and 15% auctioned. I believe that for
both the opposing side and supporting side to agree with each other,
perhaps it is smarter to alter the percentages. Maybe start with 7%
auctioned and 93% free. Therefore, there can be a more continual
progress to this cap-and-trade program, as opposed to immediately
telling companies to have to work with this restraint. I think it is
very important that on a global aspect, that our government find ways
of curbing the greenhouse gases in our country. It is futuristically
beneficial to this globe. Nothing can really be done, if there is not
safe and protected environment to live in. It is really actually quite
simple. The first and foremost responsiblity that the people have on
this globe is to protect it or else there isn't much of anything that
can be debated. In order to please both sides, I believe that it might
be more pleasing to alter the percentages of the cap-and-trade
program, but I definately believe that it is most crucial that the
government does something in implementing a way that could reduce
emissions. In joining a global treaty to address climate change, I can
see both arguments. In 1997, countries came together and signed the
Kyoto Protocol, where countries agreed to cut their emissions by
around 5% from the 1991 levels. The United States did not join this
protocol due to the effects that it would have the economy. At this
point and time, I think that although it could hurt the United States'
economy, the U.S. should commit to a global treaty to address climate
change. Over these several years, attention to the envirionment have
become more frequent. Many countries have cut their percentage of
emissions and the United States has now become number one ahead of
China. With this statistic, it is important now for the United States
to sign a global treaty and to have at least some sort of commitment
to cutting emissions, essentially for the sake of this globe and
earth.

[Adam]

I believe that preserving the environment is one of the most important
concepts that the US government needs to deal with. Even though some
companies may lose some money in order to protect the environment, it
is worth it. Therefore, I believe that imposing a cap-and-trade
program to curb greenhouse gas would be a good idea. The only problem
with imposing a cap-and-trade program would be the amounts of
emissions that certain companies would be allowed to release. It would
be extremely complicated in order to find out which companies should
be allowed to reduce less of their emissions. There are some companies
that have to deal with resources that release gases like carbon
dioxide. There isn't enough technology in order for those companies to
greatly reduce their emissions, and it would be tough for the
companies to buy all of their auctioned percentage of emissions and
still make a profit. If companies decide to buy their auctioned
percent of emissions, they could move to foreign areas where the work
supply is cheaper. That wouldn't be helpful towards the US because it
would cause a loss of American jobs. The government would need to find
a fair way in order to have a correct percentage of emissions are
allowed for free. Another problem that appears when thinking about
imposing a cap-and-trade program is the fact that an earlier cap-and-
trade program imposed in Europe failed, caused a loss of billions of
dollars, and created a very small amount of environmental progress.
The US will need to find the flaws that the last program had in order
to make a more successful program to help the environment and not
waste money. Even with these negatives, I believe that helping the
environment is worthy cause, and that trying to preserve the
environment is worth the risk of hurting our economy.
I believe that the US should commit to a global treaty to address
climate change. As the country with the largest economy, I believe
that it is the US's duty to help the world make progress in protecting
the environment. Especially after not contributing at all in 1997 when
some countries met and signed the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol stated
that countries would agree to cut their emissions by 5 percent from
the levels that they had 1991. The US, with approximately 25 percent
of the world's emissions, is the leader among countries around the
world. If the US cuts their emissions by 5 percent, that would be
great amount by comparison to other countries that cut 5 percent of
their emissions. I believe that it is important for the US to commit
to a global treaty to address climate change, even if the US's economy
gets a little bit damaged. I would rather have a damaged economy and a
planet, than a good economy without a planet to live on.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Dan Maxwell]

The thing that matters most to human life is exactly that,
living. Out of the 8 planets in our solar system, the only planet that
can support life is the Earth that we live on. Only Earth has the
correct gases and minerals needed to sustain human life. This delicate
balance has been held in place for thousands of years every since the
first caveman, but, recently, humans have been interrupting the
balance with carbon emissions. In the past 50 years, carbon emissions
have been increasing at an alarming rate. This phenomenon which we
call global warming, or climate change has the power to completely
decimate human population. For that reason, it is crucial that we find
a way to eliminate carbon emissions. One way to contain them is with
the cap-and-trade-program, which is a program designed to slowly stop
these emissions. It places a limit on emissions (85 percent), and once
companies have reached that limit, they have to pay for a certain
amount more (15 percent). I agree that a cap and trade program needs
to be implemented to curb greenhouse gases, but I think that the goal
should start more gradually to give companies time to adjust. Programs
like this have been minorly successful in the past. The Clean Air Act
aimed to reduce general air pollution and smog, but it was debated on
whether it cut jobs or created more jobs. A program like the cap-and-
trade would have negative impacts on companies, but the most important
thing is to stop global warming. Therefore by starting the plan very
gradually, companies can adjust to it and it will clean up the
environment.
Also, the U.S. should commit to a global treaty to address
climate change. It is imminent that not only the U.S. decrease
greenhouse emissions, but the rest of the world does. The U.S. is on
the forefront of the project to decrease global warming, so we need to
set an example. Surveys show that the majority of Americans feel a
need for a global treaty.A treaty may hurt the economy, but in the
long run, it is a step to saving the world we live in, which, after
all, is the most important thing.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Joelle Khouri]

I think that the government should impose a cap-and-trade program.
Climate change is a real problem and steps need to be taken to reduce
our emissions. This is a problem that many people care about, but not
enough to actually do something. Being “green” is a current fad; it’s
trendy and popular to do things for the environment, but only to the
point that no real effort is needed. It’s not hard to buy groceries
with reusable bags, or turn off the sink while brushing your teeth.
And while these steps are a start, things need to be done on a large
scale. I think it is necessary that people be forced to consider and
use alternative energy because, otherwise, nothing will be
accomplished. A cap-and-trade program is a way to hopefully wean
companies off of nonrenewable resources. They would be forced to pay
for “extra” emissions, and this would hopefully cause them to consider
and to use renewable resources. I understand that this is perhaps a
more costly method, but something needs to be done. We need to stop
being selfish and take care of our home, not just for ourselves, but
for future generations as well.
I also believe the US should commit to a global treaty to address
climate change. I think that, as a country, we are doing relatively
less to reduce our emissions than other countries. The globalization
packet we read previously says that the US does not take much action
for fear of economic reasons. On the other hand, European countries,
such as France and Great Britain, are doing more for the environment.
I think that entering an agreement with countries such as these will
provide incentive for us to match their efforts. The US gives off a
disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases, and I think that it’s
time we start to take responsibility for this. Progress made at
international meetings such as the recent G-20 summit held this past
summer shows that global gatherings are useful in promoting change. If
the US commits to a treaty, it will be bound to follow its terms.
While this could cause some economic strain, I think that saving our
environment is worth it.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Leah Coppage-Gross]

I believe, that in order to do our part to help reduce gas emissions
and control climate change, the government should impose the " cape
and trade" program. Although there are possiblities of this move
affecting our economy, I believe this is a necessary step in order
save the planet we live on. The U.S. is, by far, the leader in
greenhouse gas emissions, and I feel that this program would help to
do our part to curb the amount of CO2 we release into the air every
year. By curbing each countries allowed gas emissions, eventually
companies would start to see the effect of what they're doing, and
hopefully realize that they need to cut their own emissions and the
caps could be lowered once companies buy fewer credits. If we slowly
wean companies off of their gas emissions, there might be a point in
time when companies become energy efficient by themselves by realizing
that costs are fewer and more beneficial to the environment. I also
think it's possible that installing this program could have an effect
on other countries that have high emission rates. It is possible that
they could learn from what we do, and slowly, more nations would begin
to reduce their emissions. In addition to this, I also believe it is
important for the U.S. to commit to a global treaty that addresses
climate change. While I believe that every country should do their
part, there are definitely some differences in gas emissions and a
treaty should be formed that addresses needs of all countries. I
think the U.S. should take something like this very seriously because,
being the highest emitter, we have an obligation to coordinate with
other countries to reduce emissions worldwide. For instance, the
Kyoto Protocol was an excellent agreement where countries were able to
establish reasonable cuts, while still keeping in consideration the
development of the country. I think that it was a bad move for the
U.S. to not ratify the protocol, because it's important for the U.S.
to work in coordinance with other countries so that mutual cuts can be
determined and everyone can be satisfied that they are doing their
part to help the environment. Imposing the "cap and trade" program
and agreeing to a world agreement on climate change would be very
beneficial to the U.S. and it would greatly help further movements to
reduce gas emissions, which in turn leads to a better, healthier world
to live in.

> > other than the ones in the book.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Becky Maz]

The term cap-and-trade refers to the type of program that helps the
environment through replacing our current products and energy sources
with environmentally friendly ones. This is essentially done through
selling the right to emit greenhouse gases to a certain amount of
people or companies, and then allowing the people or companies who
have this right to trade amongst themselves. The cap also sets a
maximum limit at which time the government will no longer hand out
emission permits. This system has been used with other issues such as
acid raid, but when dealing with greenhouse gases, for instance, we
would use electricity instead of oil. I think that the cap-and-trade
program may be effective, but it is setting a high standard for our
country. The goal is attainable, but it may be difficult to get
everyone to participate under the terms agreed upon by the government.
The current cap-and-trade program suggests that we would begin a
decrease in our usage of environmentally harmful substances in 2012.
When we reach 2015, the program will be in full effect, and in 2020,
the program will continue from there in our everyday lives. So, in an
attempt to stop 90% of seven greenhouse gases from leaking into the
atmosphere, I do feel that it is important to attempt to curb our
greenhouse gases.
In response to the next question, if we put a cap-and-trade program
into effect for our own country, we must attempt to commit to a global
treaty to address climate change. One of the biggest problems with the
cap-and-trade program in the first place, is that it is only for the
U.S. It would be useless to decrease the amount of polution we put
into the atmosphere and ignore all of the other countries that are
emitting greenhouse gases as well. After all, this is not a question
of who is more green, the environment should not be a competition
between countries because in reality, we all live on the same earth,
and we all want to live for a long time. If the earth doesn't live for
a long time, the human race is not guaranteed to live for a long time
either.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[k.Borkovitz]

I believe that the excessive amount of carbon emissions that countries
are releasing into the atmosphere is quite selfish, to be honest. In a
world of instantaneous satisfaction, the hesitance to reduce
accessibility to this privilege directly correlates with reluctance to
reduce the use of non-renewable fuels. Therefore, I believe that
instating a carbon tax would be beneficial. This would provide
motivation for companies that use non-renewable fuels to choose energy
sources that are better for the environment. In addition, I believe
that a carbon tax a more flexible option than the cap-and-trade
program. If that kind of program was enforced, many companies would
feel pigeonholed into the economic movement, versus having it be their
own decision to switch fuel sources. Additionally, many people would
lose their jobs due to the cap-and-trade program. This is because
instead of staying in the U.S., where the program would be enforced,
they might bring their companies to countries with more flexibility
concerning fuel. This would put thousands of people out of work.
Though the Clean Air Act of 1995, in its efforts to reduce the amount
of acid rain, was successful in using a cap-and-trade program, it was
on a far smaller scale than the issue of climate change and carbon
emissions that our world faces today. This problem dominates on a
global scale, and could very well impact future generations of the
world. Since this problem plagues the entire world, and not just one
specific country, the whole globe should be involved in mending our
environment. In my opinion, the amount of this tax should be relative
to the country in question, based on their average annual carbon
emissions. The higher the emission is, the higher the tax. If every
country were to lower their carbon emissions, there is a possibility
that our atmosphere would be resilient. The faster our nation moves in
solving this problem, the faster we can create a world that is safe
(and existing) for generations to come.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Andrew Lin]

Cap and trade – the eco-friendly practice of providing economic
bonuses for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions – is a sound
practice in theory. Indeed, in theory, cap and trade, also known as
emissions trading, has little in the way of logical hiccups, does not
pose any immediate threat to any business group or environmental
biome, and certainly helps on paper to improve environmental safety.
Cap and trade, however, is still a dangerous proposition – but not
because of anything within the premise or the theoretical structure.
Rather, cap and trade policies are severely complicated by a single
and very essential step in the process: execution.
It is rather easy to write up a cap and trade proposal; two or three
interns working five or six hours could produce a decent proposal.
What is difficult, however, is the execution and implementation of
said proposal; truculence among everyone from small businessmen to
irate Republicans to contrarian politicians trying to get votes often
leads to the impediment of many cap and trade proposals. If the
proposal manages to make it past whatever governmental organization
controls these environmental “things”, then the next problem (and this
is a nasty one indeed) is manipulation of the system. Large
corporations, ironically, are very well-poised to exploit cap and
trade proposals, with teams of lawyers having exploited cap and trade
systems ever since the overall policy’s introduction in the late
1980s. Typically, most carbon-spewing corporations exploit the cap and
trade system via the market-based nature of carbon credits (that which
allows you to spew carbon at a price) - elbowing out small businesses
in the process. Specifically, this stems from a glut of carbon
credits in the market; cheap carbon credits allow large companies to
go right on producing noxious gases with only negligible drops in
profits. As the number of credits draws down and credits grow more
expensive, small businesses are unable to collect and then are
disadvantaged.
Cap and trade bills are noble propositions on paper and inside roomy
senatorial and congressional halls. In practice, however, they often
hurt those they are trying to help; in truth, they often are proposed
by starry-eyed environmentalists and then left to die, with the cap-
and-trade plans so brilliantly crafted not cognizant of the
implications of basic economics. The cap-and-trade program, though
good in intentions, does not work effectively. Action – strong taxes,
heavy government subsidies, and mandatory requirements (or else severe
fines) across the world and the board – is necessary for this
environment and this Earth to survive.

- Andrew Lin

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Lindsay Korzekwa]

I believe that we, as a country and a species, have a
responsibility to ensure that we take good care of our planet to the
best of our abilities. However, although much more is being done today
than in previous years, we still have a long way to go. The Unites
States has both the largest economy in the world and emits the most
pollution. It only seems logical that we should at the very least make
an effort to counter the damage we are doing to the environment.
Unfortunately, even countries significantly less wealthy have made
much more progress than we have. I think that it is important that we
realize that, if we do not take care of our home, we will find that we
no longer have a planet on which to run the economies we spent so long
protecting.
The "cap and trade" system is a good start to making these
environmentally-friendly reforms. Of course, there are some
significant problems that should be addressed, such as how the
corporations will attempt to cut their budget. I, like many others,
feel that this system should be implemented more gradually to lessen
the chances of businesses moving to countries with less regulations. I
believe that imposing such a system is the only way to ensure that
something actually gets done, even if it does hurt our economy.
With regards to the signing of treaties, it is crucial that
America commits to environmental reform and takes responsibility for
its carbon dioxide emissions. How will other nations be encouraged to
make the transition to renewable resources if the most powerful
country in the world is doing nothing? In reality, our sources of
energy are going to run out, and we need to ensure that we are
prepared for when that time comes.

[ds]

Finding a balance between the economy and the environment is a
difficult task. Protecting the planet is obviously the most important
issue, because without a planet, no one be alive to argue about
anything else. However, I do not think imposing a cap-and-trade
program is the best way to curb greenhouse gas. Multiple cap-and-trade
programs have been started in Europe, costing the government billions
and showing few positive environmental results. I think it's naïve and
a bit arrogant for us to assume that the cap-and-trade program would
be a success in the United States even though it's been somewhat of a
failure in other nations. Aside from costing the government billions
with little guarantee of getting results, the program would very
likely have a negative effect on the economy (which is obviously not
more important than the well being than the planted, but is
nonetheless an important consideration). Profits would suffer because
of raised costs and less production. Many industries would be
incapable of accommodating such a program without taking drastic
measures such as cutting jobs and raising prices. Outsourcing could
become more prevalent, as it would be more profitable for companies in
countries where the environmental laws are more lax, resulting in loss
of American jobs. The likelihood that a cap-and-trade program would
have a positive impact is not great. A carbon tax would be more
straightforward and would encourage companies to find alternative,
clean forms of energy, such as wind and solar. Although wind and solar
energy account for very little of the U.S.'s energy currently, it
would be a good investment for the U.S. to fund such energy sources as
they are renewable and clean.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Hannah North]

While it is a valid point that a cap-and-trade program could prove to
have diminishing effects to our economy, it is clear that the
environmental crisis has simply grown too large to ignore any longer.
If we do not take swift course of action, the earth as we know it will
never be the same, and may even eventually be unable to sustain life.
Considering that carbon emissions into the ozone layer have been
specifically recognized by scientists as being a lead cause of climate
change, it is in not only our best interest, but for the generations
upon generations ahead of us, to implement a solid cap-and-trade
program. Taking in mind this program is designed to reduce carbon
emissions by 80% come 2050, this is the kind of drastic action needed
to ensure that the world is safe for our children and our children's
children. Making the transition from being dependent on the kinds of
energy making processes that are destroying the earth in favor of
investing in green technology is not going to be an easy task, and the
fact of the matter is that sacrifices are going to have be made for
the good of man kind. There is certainly the looming possibility that
businesses and corporations are going to have to cut costs and even
loose some of their workers. However in the long run, a cap-and-trade
program would have tremendous affects on slowing down the rate at
which the ozone layer is diminishing, and therefore it is my fervent
opinion that for the particular issue, the benefits far outweigh the
risks. However, I believe the US should proceed with caution when it
comes to signing a global treaty to address climate change. Although
in the future this may be a very positive move for the US as a way to
attempt to cooperate with the rest of the world to attack climate
change, right now the best course of action would be for the US to
focus on getting a successful cap-and-trade policy passed before it
makes any commitments to the international community. Coming up with a
global policy for lower carbon emissions as well as generally create a
greener world will be difficult to accommodate the needs of all
countries and make the treaty truly effective. For the time being, the
US should simply focus on trying to get things up and running with a
national cap-and-trade program, and then perhaps worry about
collaborating with the rest of the world. As a nation, we would most
likely be able to have the greatest effect on the changing climate if
we tackle it ourselves and THEN begin to cooperate with the rest of
the world. Signing a global treaty to address climate change should
definitely be a course of action for the US in the future, but for now
we should primarily deal with getting our own plan of action
assembled. If we are able to formulate a successful cap-and-trade
program without too great of a strain on the economy, signing a global
treaty to commit to attack climate change would absolutely be an
excellent way to prove to the rest of the world that we are as adamant
as they are about this increasingly pressing cause.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[sean young]

When it comes to global warming and greenhouse gas emission,
I believe that it is necessary to cut down on these emissions. But,
even though I think we should curb greenhouse gas, I don't believe
that a cap-and-trade program would be the best choice to make on this
issue. The cap-and-trade program has the right idea, don't get me
wrong here, but I think that there is a better way to execute it.
Basically, the idea behind the cap-and-trade program is that the
government will issue businesses "free emissions" which means that
they will be able to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases. But,
if these businesses go over that amount, they have to either purchase
"auctioned emissions", or trade their "emission credits" with other
businesses. The point of cap-and-trade is to drive businesses to cut
down on their emissions but making them pay for extra, as well as
stimulating the economy, by allowing businesses to trade credits with
each other. The main reason that I don't like this idea is the fact
that companies may take the easy route- not lower their emissions, but
instead cut monetary losses elsewhere, either by jacking up their
prices or by firing workers. If this happens, then jobs are lost, and
less money is going back into the economy, because less people will
buy their overpriced goods. Also, companies might just move their
location out of the U.S and into countries that have more lenient
energy policies, which doesn't reduce global pollution at all. In
addition, since different states have different amounts of greenhouse
gas production, then I think that states should develop their own
emission plans, not the government. So in conclusion, I believe that
the states should monitor their emissions, not the government, and the
states should use a different strategy of promoting greenhouse gas
reduction instead of cap-and-trade, like a tax on businesses that
produce more gases than their respective states allow.
I also think that a global treaty to address climate change
is another bad idea. The reason why I don't think a global treaty is a
good idea is because of the fact that it just isn't plausible to think
that the entire world will come to an agreement. For example, this
treaty would have an extremely bad economic impact on the U.S. In our
terrible economic state right now, we really don't need another weight
on our shoulders. This economic impact would not only influence the
U.S, but other countries as well. Take China for example - it has the
second largest economy in the world, and it stays there by
manipulating its yuan. If China had to pay a certain amount for its
carbon emissions, all it would need to do to keep its economy up would
be to manipulate the yuan even more, affecting the global economy
drastically. Also, the global treaty might not be possible because of
the fact that smaller, less-developed countries just don't have the
money or resources to but back on their emissions, so the treaty would
have no beneficial effect on them. In conclusion, I don't believe
that a global treaty is necessary because of the economic impact on
the world, as well as the fact that it just isn't possible for smaller
countries to put the treaty's plans into action.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Allie Ziegler]

The protection of our environment is something that, although the
effects may not be seen tomorrow, this week, or this year even, should
be acted upon now in order to insure that life on Earth will be
prolonged to the greatest extent and that our planet will continue to
be an ecologically safe place to live. During the last one hundred
years, the emission of greenhouse gases has increased exponentially.
Many scientists agree that these gases trap heat in the atmosphere,
and cause dangerous changes to the Earth's climate. I believe that in
order to reduce the amount of greenhouses gases emitted into the
environment, the U.S. government needs to impose a cap-and-trade
program where the government limits the total amount of pollution, and
auctions of part of this total in the form of "pollution credits". The
profits from this total could be used for a multitude of purposes, one
of which includes helping lower--income citizens who would be the most
affected by the substantial rise in energy prices. Even though the cap-
and-trade program would inevitably raise the cost of gas products
ranging from power bills to gasoline, it would be a possible solution
to the detrimental rise in the emission of greenhouse gases in our
environment. In addition, under the cap-and-trade system companies
would have the incentive to reduce emissions, in order to cut their
cost, therefore the motivation behind this program would help it to be
successful.
Not only do I believe that the United States should impose a cap-
and-trade system to curb greenhouse gas, but I also think that it is
imminent for us to commit to a global treaty to address the
substantial climate change. I believe that by committing to a global
environmental protection effort, the United States would not only
demonstrate its true concentration on protecting our environment to
other nations, but we would be taking an important first step in
globalizing the fight against climate change and a strong carbon
footprint. Despite the fact that establishing a national or even
international environmental protection policy would be difficult
because of differences in emissions of states and/or nations, it is
still very crucial for us to acknowledge our environmental destruction
and act on protecting the environment for the future of our planet. I
believe it is time for us to finally focus on something other than our
economy and to work on saving the natural environment we have
gradually destroyed during our existence. Therefore, I believe that
the U.S. should commit to a global treaty addressing climate change
and environmental protection.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Sarah]

I agree that severe actions need to be taken immediately to address
the idea of climate change, and though I don't believe cap-and-trade
is the best option, I believe it is the most achieveable one at the
moment. I did some outside research to obtain a better idea of its
capabilities and limitations and discovered that in cap-and-trade,
often the companies given the most credits are the ones that have
previously been producing astronomically large amounts of pollution:
in other words, they aren't actually forced to do that much to reform.
Secondly, cap-and-trade gives companies the oppurtunity to recieve
more credits in return for proving that they have reduced carbon
emissions, but many companies cheat this so that they get credits for
doing nothing and are, in essence, just producing more carbon. These
issues and the many others, including the economic worries that many
people express, often stem from poorly-written bills. Therefore, since
cap-and-trade is probably the option that we would be able to
implement the soonest and with the least controversy, if we can write
the bill effectively and provide strict guidelines, it is still
probably the best way to start. As for those who say that jobs will be
lost in the coal industry and some big companies will struggle, I
respond that those jobs need to be eliminated eventually if we are
ever to repair this environmental damage, and isn't a little economic
worry for some middle-class families worthwhile if it protects the
earth for countless future generations? So, though the sooner we can
move on to further reform the better, for now cap-and-trade is
probably the best option.
As to global treaties on climate change, I believe the US absolutely
needs to sign them and commit to the goals of each and every one. To
not do so for economic or other reasons is purely selfish. There are
economies out there with far greater poverty levels who have committed
themselves to these treaties, and we can do it as well. The US is one
of the top polluters right now, and we need to do something about
that. The droughts, floods, and natural disasters caused by climate
change are likely to strike mostly in the undeveloped sub-Saharan
African nations that have done little or nothing to contribute to this
issue, so countries that have contributed - especially us - need to
start apologizing and acting. Also, we can't expect to be able to
convince developing nations, who will soon be even more of a problem
than we are, to curb emissions unless we do so ourselves. It sounds
cliche, but only because it is so true. For all these reasons and a
million more (don't you think it's our duty to clean up our messes
before we pass the world on to the next generation?) the US needs to
start working with the global treaties that have been proposed to
address climate change.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Yuichiro Iwamoto]

I am a strong supporter of the emission trading or the cap-and-trade
program, but I think that it has a long way to go before it is
actually set in action. By limiting the emission of industries, and
using auction type methods to sell the rights of additional gas
emission sounds like a very good idea. Not only does it significantly
decrease the amount of pollution expelled by the factories, but it
also brings in more money to the government to spend on environment
conservation programs. Through these programs, many new jobs will
become available, significantly decreasing the unemployment rate. It
could lead nations out of the damage that this economical recession
had caused. Of course, there are industry types that are almost
dependent on the amount of emission that they produce. This includes
industries that manufacture metals that have no real way of cutting
down on emission without it directly interfering with the overall
profit of the company. I believe there should be a set of special
policies for these types of companies. Perhaps, there could be a more
lenient restriction on gas emission such as allowing 95% of its normal
gas emission, or funding these companies so they are able to install
the latest green technologies with some of the money earned from the
cap-and-trade program. However, the critics of this program rightly
say that there are major loopholes in this system and it will not have
a notable positive environmental effect globally. There are offsets in
the system that allow industries to abuse this law. For example, a
farmer that has no intention of cutting down his forest is rewarded
with trade credits that could be sold using the trade mechanism of the
program. This credit will likely go to a person that does need to cut
down forests, just not the original farmer's forests. Thus, there is
no net reduction of the forests being cut down, rendering this program
and policy useless. This is a major offset of the cap-and-trade
program, and I believe that until the program is modified to fix this
loophole, cap-and-trade is near impossible.

I think that the US should commit itself to a global treaty to address
climate change, but I highly doubt this will happen considering the
current situation and US policies. US, once at the forefront of the
environmental movement is now along with the developing countries that
suggest that limiting emission and taking other steps to reduce global
climate change will only stunt the economy. The loss that US will
suffer from signing any major treaty or agreements regarding
environmental problems is simply too great. Obviously, because the US
has such an enormous economy that is somewhat reliant on industries,
controlling the emission and reducing carbon footprints will cause a
significant decrease in its productivity. This may even cause a
decrease in the number of job opportunities, degrading the US.
Environmental restrictions will eat away at the US economy, and now
especially after the recession it will jeopardize US's position as the
world's super power. For these reasons, I believe that it is
impossible for the US to commit to a global treaty that addresses
climate change as of now.

[Claire]

I do not believe that the cap and trade program is something that the
government should impose in order to reduce our impact on the
environment. Even though I do agree that humans need to cut down on
the emissions of pollutants, I think that the cap and trade system is
an unnecessarily complicated procedure with too many inherent flaws
that could potentially lead to the downfall of our economy. Instead, I
believe that simply imposing a fixed tax on emissions, a carbon tax,
would be effective enough to curb companies' emissions of greenhouse
gases. The cap and trade program is essentially providing a monetary
incentive for companies to reduce harmful gas emissions, exactly the
same as what carbon taxes would do. However, in the cap and trade
system, the buying of credits and trades between companies are too
complex and too open for corruption. Because the system involves
interactions between different companies concerning the buying and
selling of carbon credits, it is highly probable that two companies
may form an alliance with one another for corrupt purposes. With so
many companies out there, it would be difficult for the government to
regulate every company. Say, companies could fabricate carbon credit
trades between each other, and if this happens to a large extent, soon
the whole cap and trade system would become muddled. There would be no
completely accurate record of which company has how many credits,
leading to an overall useless and corrupt operation, such as the
poorly run schemes in Europe which have led to only extremely minimal
environmental progress. These failed cap and trade programs have
consumed billions and billions of dollars, only leading to the
weakening of the economy. Furthermore, corrupt companies risk failure,
and ultimately weaken the economy as well. If the government instead
opted for a much more simplified, much more straightforward action
like carbon taxes, all of these potential pitfalls could be avoided.
It would be wasteful and mindless for the government to implement such
a complicated plan like cap and trade, when the other option is the
much safer and easier plan of carbon taxing.
Additionally, I believe that it would be best if the US should commit
to a global treaty to address climate change. The U.S. is among the
top producers of greenhouse gas emissions, and it is our obligation to
cut back on these emissions. The United States was the only major
industrialized nation that did not agree to Kyoto Protocol, an
international treaty adopted in 1997 aimed at cutting greenhouse gas
emissions by about 5% from their 1990 levels by 2012. Several smaller
countries, with only a fraction of the US's greenhouse gas emissions,
agreed to the protocol, and thereby agreed to cut back on their
emissions. However, their cutbacks would have only equaled a fraction
of the cutbacks the US would have done, had the US signed to the
treaty. Since the US has such a huge output of greenhouse gases, even
a relatively small cutback would be enormous when compared to the
cutbacks of other countries. It is imperative that the US agrees to
future treaties concerning climate change, as to completely ensure
that it will make an effort to cut back on harmful emissions. Only
then will the world be able to make a legitimate difference in
reducing humans' damage to the world, and save our environment before
it is too late.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Hannah]

Preserving our environment is a necessity for human survival,
since [as of now] it is the only one that we have. I believe that the
government should impose a cap-and-trade program to curb greenhose
gases because US needs to start helping to save our planet by reducing
our carbon footprint. US only makes up 5% of the worlds population,
yet we are one of the countries that emits the most greenhouse gases.
The attempts to curb greenhouse gases emitted by the US so far seem to
stay just that: attempts with no effective outcome. US needs to find
an effective way to limit, if not stop, the emission of these harmful
gases, and charging companies for the amount of greenhouse gases they
release into the atmosphere will make them realize how much harmful
gases they are releasing into the environment. The proposed cap-and-
trade program will give 85% of carbon emissions free and make the
companies pay for the other 15%. However, I believe that the amount
they are charging is too little. If the US charges a little at the
beginning, then gradually increases the amount being charged, it will
force companies to find environmentally-friendly practices or go
bankrupt, eliminating all of their carbon emissions (and most likely
corporations would prefer the former over the latter). While at first
there may be increased costs, it will pay off in the long run because
the planet will be able to support life.
I also believe that the US should commit to a global treaty
to address climate change because it needs to show the world that it
is committed to preserve the environment, especially after it did not
sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1991 due to the belief that it would
negatively impact their economy. Committing to a global treaty will
also force the US to do something to preserve the environment instead
of just tossing around ideas and not actually doing anything
productive. A global treaty would also unite the countries of the
world in a peaceful project that would benefit everybody and make
everyone learn how to work together on a project that affects the
whole world.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Alison Mosier-Mills]

The newspaper headlines this summer were filled with reports of the
horrific damage that the BP Deepwater Horizon spill had done to the
Gulf of Mexico, and more recently, images of villagers covered in
acidic red sludge have been widespread in the wake of a deadly
chemical spill in Hungary. These recent events highlight a very
serious problem that needs to be dealt with immediately: the
environment, and, more specifically, how humans are affecting it. I'm
a big supporter of environmental policy reform throughout the world,
and I believe that yes, the government should make the environmental
crisis a top priority, but I don't think that the proposed cap-and-
trade model would work effectively.

Ultimately, taking action now against greenhouse gases will be more
beneficial for the future inhabitants of Earth. However, in a proposal
that has so many loopholes for big companies, I find it hard to
believe that a cap-and-trade program will actually work when put into
practice. I'm sure that all of us have heard the cliché that we can
"all do our part" in saving the environment. While this is true, in
order to make real progress in curbing greenhouse gases, the
government must target big companies first -- and these corporations
are more likely to respond to monetary incentives than to heart-
wrenching pictures of animals choking on oil. And, if these companies
decide that they can get cheap labor AND won't have to pay taxes on
their carbon emissions if they move to, say, India, then what would
stop them from going? And, once they're in India, what kinds of
standards and regulations regarding greenhouse gas emission now apply
to the company? How much control would the US government have?
Throughout history, news of disasters like Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl have caught the world's attention, and, as we saw in the BP
oil spill, as we're currently seeing with the spill in Hungary,
someone must be held responsible. But, if these companies are no
longer in the United States, how can we keep track of what they're
doing, how should we respond in the event of an emergency, and who is
held accountable for fixing the mess they've made?

Yes, it is the world's responsibility to address the pressing issue of
climate change and greenhouse gases, but I think that the current
suggestions for cap-and-trade programs simply provide too many
opportunities for big companies to weasel their way out of the deal.
In a time when our nation is facing a crisis at home and abroad, we
must not waste the time and energy we've devoted to the environment on
a plan that may not work.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[jblr...@aim.com]

There are many valid points as to why the U.S. government should not
impose a cap-and-trade program to curb greenhouse gas, but in my
opinion I believe that the government should impose this program. The
primary reason we should go forward is that emitting greenhouse gases
is bad for our environment, causing the atmosphere to be 33 degrees
Celsius warmer than it would be without these gases (Green House Gases
and Society). One of the positive effects of imposing a cap-and-trade
system would be that it could start a domino effect of companies using
more energy-efficient practices because they would want to use more of
their carbon emissions allowance, greater than their 85 % (pg. 11-4).
It would also help boost the economy, and help with fresh air. On the
other hand, unlike Global Sugar Alliance members who are “strong
advocates for trade reform” (Commodity Online US sugar policy blamed
for protectionism), I do not believe that the U.S. should commit to a
global treaty to address climate changes, at least for the time
being. This is a difficult task and trying to complete this program
is hard because the emission levels in various nations are too
different to come up with one grand solution. Establishing an
international emissions policy would ignore differences among
countries (pg. 11-7). A Reuters report from last June states that
both developing and emerging nations have issues with trying to meet
proposed international standards. We do not want to sign yet another
treaty and get bad results from it. We already have a hard of enough
time trying to make a national policy because of the difference in
emission levels in our states and trying to make a global policy among
so many countries just seems ludicrous when we can’t even make up a
solid policy in our country. I do not believe that the U.S. should
jump into yet another global issue without first sorting out our own
environmental issues. We need to learn not to get ahead of ourselves,
so that we can help our own country and in turn help the rest of the
world.

Kelly Colton

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Emerson Congleton]

In a world with increasing environmental problems and disasters, we
need to find a solution. A solution that will not harm our economy, a
solution that will lower carbon emissions and help us lower green
house gases. Such a solution has not been found yet, various ideas
have been suggested but they have either been rejected or have failed.
The most recent suggestion has been a Cap and Trade legislation which
is meant to reduce total carbon emission by putting cap on emissions.
I think that a Cap and Trade program would not work in our country and
with our current economy. Many fear losing their jobs if a cap and
trade bill is put into place, especially in regions where the main
industries couldn't adapt to such a program. Another down-side to a
cap and trade bill is that companies could move to countries with more
relaxed environmental laws, which would reduce jobs and would render
our nation's environmental goals useless.
The US should a leader in addressing climate change, and I feel that
we are on our way towards such a position even if we do reject the
recent cap and trade plan. We should definitely commit to a global
treaty as long as it does not do any damage to the US. If the treaty
is not addressing climate change to the extent we want it to, then the
US can impose it's own climate change laws on top of what the treaty
requires. A global treaty would make managing emissions easier for
companies who sell their products world wide, and it would be more
effective than a company having to adapt to different countries rules
and regulations.

[Alison Mosier-Mills]

For some reason, part of my response was cut off -- sorry! Here's the
rest:

When the U.S. failed to sign the Kyoto protocol, it came across to
other nations that we cared more about our economy than we did about
the future of our world in terms of environment. Frankly, part of the
problem with carbon emissions is that, in some cases, even if there is
a more fuel efficient option available, people will go with what they
have been raised with, which is likely to be less eco-friendly. I
believe that as soon as we take action to make the world more
environmentally sound, the next generation to be born will be more
likely to live by these standards. Once we've formally devoted
ourselves to solving this problem, others will follow. Yes, our
economy and job market might be affected as we change sources of
energy, but humans have learned to adapt to changes throughout time
and will surely be able to accommodate this one. Finally, as a world
superpower, the United States sets a standard for other nations. How
can we get them to commit to helping the environment if we won't?
Clearly, it is absolutely necessary that we commit to a global treaty
to address these issues.

[Irina Ahn]

I believe that the government should impose a cap-and-trade program to
curb greenhouse gases. I believe that protecting the environment is
more important than making the economy better because without a safe
ealthy environment to live in an economy wouldn't be stable in the
first place. A cap-and-trade program essentially limits companys'
emissions. The program gives industries 85% of their carbon emissions
allowance free and gives 15% for auctioning, but if industries need to
emit more than they're given, then they have to pay for the additional
carbon given. There are some conflicts with the program due to the so
many different emission levels, but this would limit the total
pollution emissions by a lot. There are also some companies that are
not developed enough in technology to limit their emissions by this
much of an amount like steel and coal industries. So maybe when
creating a new program, they could make the emission levels to cut
down more equal or better accomodated to all the countries. In order
to create a successful cap-and-trade program, the US will need to look
at the mistakes made in the previous Europe cap-and-trade program that
lost Europe billions of dollars and had little of an economical
effect. So when the program is created I also suggest fixing all the
mistakes or most of the mistakes at least that Europe made with its
program. I also believe that the US should commit to a global treaty
to address climate change because even though it will be tough to
accommodate all the different emission levels around the world,
getting as many people around the world to help solve the climate
change will still make a difference for the better. In 1997, the US
did not sign the Kyoto Protocol to cut emissions by 5% and are now the
number one economy to cut down their emissions. So I feel as though
the US has a responsibility to influence and guide the rest of the
world to a path that follows the US's example to cut down emission
levels. The US has such a large economy that even if the US only cuts
off 5% of its economy, it would still be cutting out more emissions
than some other smaller countries. Since the US is starting to lead
the world towards the right steps, it is losing some money, but its
better to save the planet before the economy instead of losing the
beautiful planet we live on.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Emily Lu]

I believe it is necessary for the government to impose a cap-and-trade
program on the power plants in the US. I agree with the supporters of
the program that if we want to avoid an environmental catastrphe, we
must act as soon as possible. With that in mind, the proposal of the
cap-and-trade program is perfect for the situation. Each business has
a unique cap based off of its needs. Some companies will be able to
maintain their emissions along their cap easily, and can therefore
auction off their "carbon credits" to other companies but the total
carbon emissions will still be 17% less by 2020. Although opponents of
this program argue that the cutting of emissions will result in higher
sales prices, it is my prediction that after a certain number of years
of the cap-and-trade, companies that lose many of customers due to
soaring prices will not want to continue buying these carbon credits.
This will promote the alternative fuel industry, which can range from
nuclear power to geothermal energy. Another proposed method of
reducing carbon emissions is the carbon tax, which is a more direct
approach to the issue. The problem with this, though, is that while it
hopes to reduce emissions by simply taxing carbon emissions, there is
no actual limit to the emissions, and so the positive effects of this
strategy stem soley from a company's willingness to pay for what it
releases. The cap-and-trade program, therefore, is the proper, current
solution to lower the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. An example
of its effectiveness is the EPA's Acid Rain Program. The sulfur
dioxide emissions-mainly from coal burning-in 1980 were at a sky high
number of 17.3 millioin tons in the US. The electric plants releasing
the sulfur dioxide received a cap, which set the goal of emissions to
be lowered to 9.5 million tons between a 5 year time period. At the
end of every year, the EPA would check up on the number of credits
each company had, whether they were short of credits or had an excess,
each credit being worth 1 ton of emission. Because the plants knew the
leftover credits ha monetary value, they had even more incentive to
lower their emissions. Even today, the results are apparent, as the
amount of sulfur dioxide was reduced from 17.3 million tons to 8.95.
Although I agree with the cap-and-trade program, I do not think
the US should commit to a global treaty. As each country has its own
circumstances that other countries at different stages of development
cannot understand, there cannot be a fair ratio of caps within these
countries.The less developed countries would not have proper
representation, either, as their delegates may be excluded from the
main conferences. Because of these reasons, I think that rather than
agreeing on lowering a certain amount of emissions globally, each
country should focus on doing the most it can accomplish for itself,
and then combine with the other countries to see the progress they
have made.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[dalton morris]

I believe that preserving the environment and the earth we live on is
more important, in the long run, than a countries individual economy.
The U.S should impose a cap-and trade program to curb greenhouse
gases. The most effective way to really insure that big companies are
going to "go green," is to create a financial incentive. If companies
are paid more when they give out less pollution, then of course they
will cut back on carbon emissions. I agree with the supporters of the
cap-and-trade system. If we want to prevent an environmental
catastrophe, we must act as soon as possible. The cap-and-trade
program provides us with a way to do that. Each company has a certain
cap based off of its needs. Many companies will stay within their
caps
and can sell their remaining carbon emissions, gaining financially.
The companies that do not stay within their caps must buy more carbon
emissions and then suffer financially. Overall though, the carbon
emission will still decrease 17% by 2020 because there is a set cap
that does not fluctuate.
Yes, the United States should commit to a global treaty addressing
climate change. The U.S is the largest, most powerful country in the
world. If the U.S does not step up and promote the "green" theory
throughout the world, not many other countries will. As the largest
most powerful country, we have that responsibility to take a
leadership roll in preserving the world's environment. Plus, we give
out the most pollution and greenhouse gases out of anybody in the
world, we should definitely be signing these treaty's to help with the
environment.

On Oct 18, 8:38 am, "Mr. J." <glen.jaskelew...@rtsd.org> wrote:

[Saad Imran]

I am in strong favor of the government appointing a cap-and-trade
program to curb greenhouse gases. I believe the overall well-being of
our environment, as a long term objective, is far more important than
our necessity of pollution causing materials. To make the world a
safe, clean, environment the cap-and-trade program would be a very
effective way of decreasing the total amount of pollution in the
atmosphere. The cap-and-trade program would put an overall "cap" on
emissions, and would decrease the levels of emissions by 80% by 2050.
In the cap-and-trade program it would limit the amount of emissions
for each industry to 85% of carbon emission for free, and 15% of it
would be auctioned. Policies such as the cap-and-trade policy are
crucial for preserving the environment although there are some
downsides, which in my point of view are incomparable to the upsides
of this sort. The downsides of this would be an increase in cost for
money, and would be a rather costly method. The companies should still
keep one question in mind while viewing the cap-and -trade policy,
Would they rather save money now and have no Earth, or do they prefer
preserving the earth and keeping it? The various corporations need to
realize that we need to work with green technologies on a grand scale,
although somewhat costly shown in the cap-and-trade policy. Another
argument which the critics bring forth is that industries such as
steel and coal do not have the technology or the financial flexibility
to follow the cap-and-trade policy. These issues would lead them to go
to developing countries such as China and India, and this would
significantly affect the American economy in a poor way and it would
lead to very little environmental progress. In response to this I
believe the government will have to bring forth a negotiation with the
companies, such as less tight policies on emissions or a compromise of
their arguments and our needs to preserve the environment. Also,
although the critics propose it will "destroy" the economy, it could
also boost the "green' industry and create jobs in the green
technology and fuel sectors.

In addition to being in favor of the cap-and-trade agreement, I
also believe that the United States should commit to a global treaty
to address climate change. This global treaty would help preserve the
environment, and it would be a great leap in the world going green. I
think the United States should take initiative in implementing a
global treaty to address the climate change as they are in a sense the
role models of the world, and they are also the BIGGEST country. The
Kyoto protocol, a protocol aimed at fighting global warming, was a
prime example of a global treaty which addressed climate change.
Although the United States did not sign this particular protocol it
signifies the manner in which the US should commit to a global treaty
to address SIGNIFICANT climate change. The US is "supposed" to do this
as it is one of the largest, not if the largest contributor of
greenhouse emissions. Lastly, in relation to both the cap-and-trade
agreement and a global treaty, even if it effects the economy, I
believe that the environment outweighs the economy 1,000:1.

[Grace]

From pop culture to the government an issue that constantly remains
in the forefront of the news is the environment and global warming.
Logically, this makes sense. We rely on the earth to sustain our
lives, and without it society would not exist. For many years members
of congress have debated whether to pass a "cap and trade" policy.
This policy is designed reduce carbon emissions by placing a cap over
the total allowed emissions. Business who emit more than their
allowance would be forced to purchase "carbon credits" and business
that are energy efficient would not. Looking at this policy from a
purely environmental standpoint it sounds ideal, but after considering
the impact it would have on the economy it loses appeal. The cap and
trade program would be economically taxing on many companies who would
therefore be forced to raise prices and cut jobs. Additionally these
companies could easily relocate to nations without such regulations,
such as China and India - once again cutting jobs and completely
undermining the program altogether. The cap and trade program is an
idealistic policy that has come before its time. Until it is
economically logical as well as environmentally logical this policy
will not succeed.
I believe that carbon tax is an intelligent alternative.
Carbon tax, while possibly having less of an effect on the
environment, is a more realistic program. In carbon tax companies
will be charged a fixed tax based on emissions. This gives the
companies incentive to use for efficient resources for fuel. This
policy is far more simplistic than cap and trade policy. While
helping the environment and limiting the effect on the economy, carbon
tax is a good compromise.
A global treaty addressing climate change would not be one
easily reached by all. While idealistically it sounds like a good
option for the U.S, the question arises will it actually pay off?
Each country differs so greatly, and the states within the U.S have
needs so varied it would be difficult to keep the treaty relevant to
all of the countries involved. The treaty could potentially put the
U.S at a disadvantage as one of the few powerful countries to agree to
it. Countries like China and Russia could possibly refuse to join,
causing the U.S trade and economy to suffer. If countries like China,
Russia, and India were to refuse to take part the purpose of the
treaty altogether would be lost. The countries with some of the
largest emissions would still continue to pollute the environment
without regulations. While the treaty sounds like an idea that could
potentially benefit the environment greatly I believe its potentially
would never be reached and it would cause more complications than
necessary.

[preeya...@live.com]

I believe that the government should not use a cap-and-trade program,
but the excess amount of greenhouse gas emissions should be addressed.
Personally, I feel that the incentive to lower greenhouse gas
emissions that is provided for in the cap-and-trade program has the
possibility to be recreated through another option. This other option
could have the ability to be less complicated, and would eliminate the
problems with credits, and deciding which company gets how big of a
cap. The issues of how much of a percentage should be free carbon
emissions, and how much should be auctioned would be eradicated. Also,
another problem with the cap-and-trade program is that it may push
countries to move their business to other places (like India and
China) where the environmental regulations are not as tight as those
of the U.S. This would eliminate job options in the U.S, and overall,
not reduce the carbon emission for the world. In conclusion, I don’t
believe that the government should impose a cap-and-trade program.
I believe that a global treaty is the best solution to address climate
change. Since climate change affects and is affected by the whole
globe, that is how it should be addressed, globally. By committing to
a global treaty it would ensure that companies don’t just change from
one country to the next for the next lowest environmental regulations.
Instead, it will ensure that all companies lower their carbon
emissions, and that they use clean energy to fuel their practices. A
change that could take place is that instead of making the caps, or
taxes based on fuel emission over all, it could be based on the
percentage of the total fuel a country produces. This would ensure
that differences between countries and their carbon emissions, do not
affect the effort that they put in into addressing global climate
change. By making a global effort, climate change can be addressed in
a successful and effective way.

[Matt Ming]

I support the cap-and-trade policy enacted by Congress in the American
Clean Air and Security Act to curtail rising greenhouse gas levels.
While there is opposition to the mandatory cap on emissions and
bartering unused emissions permits, I feel that such measures are
justified and have a precedent for success. Congress approved the
Clean Air Act of 1990 to control air pollution and acid rain due to
sulfur dioxide emissions. Air quality in the United States has
improved noticeably and measurably in the past two decades due to this
cap-and-trade policy. Allowing the unchecked accumulation of
greenhouse gases will further fuel climate change and the predicted
disastrous consequences on the Earth and environment. It is important
to take action by holding corporations responsible for controlling
their carbon-based emissions. There may be instances of collusion and
noncompliance, but, as with the Clean Air Act, the net result should
be positive and will benefit the environment. Changing corporate and
household practices is clearly possible and plausible if we support
the cap-and-trade programs.
I believe that the United States should also commit to a global
treaty that addresses climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions that
contribute to climate change are prevalent in the United States, but
it is also a problem on a global scale, affecting the Earth from pole
to pole. Other countries have realized the dangers and have committed
to activism by signing international treaties and protocols, such as
the Kyoto Protocol, to address the issue. President Bush did not sign
the Kyoto Protocol in 2005, reasoning that the US was facing energy
shortages and committing the US to the restrictions imposed by the Act
would threaten the US economy. He also felt that Congress would not
approve the protocol. Some may argue that worldwide collaboration is
impossible due to the differences in emissions of different
countries. However, I feel that industrialized nations, which are
responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions to date, need
to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and their
dependence on carbon-based energy resources. I think that the United
States has a duty, as a major industrial power, to show by example
that it is making a valiant effort on this front and is willing to
join as an international partner to confront the challenge. I feel
that significant progress can be made by the unified global pact and
effort to reduce carbon-based emissions. Each country ultimately has
to take its own steps to control greenhouse gas emissions, but I feel
that doing so under an international treaty creates a sense of unified
purpose and responsibility that will have a broader impact on the
global environment.

[Julia Bryck]

In this age where technology continues to develop at a rapid pace, we
must become increasingly aware of our impact upon the world we
inhabit. The greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere pose a
serious threat, and action must be taken as soon as possible to limit
further emissions. However, I do not believe that a cap-and-trade
system is the best answer. We have already seen that such a model has
proven ineffective in Europe, with billions spent and little impact.
The system is also not created equal for all businesses. Some lack the
flexibility to make changes in production to more green standards, and
doing so might either be extraordinarily costly for the business or
impossible al together. Industries such as coal production are the
definition of not "green" and a cap-and-trade system would not only
hurt the workers in these industries, but would also drive up prices.
I am not to say that the state of the American economy is more
important than protecting the environment, but it is a very delicate
balancing act. The government cannot aimlessly start taxing people to
make more environmentally friendly reforms without great caution. In
the current plan, I fear that giving the companies the power to
auction off their own carbon "credits" could lead to a lot of
corruption and undermine the intentions of the cap-and-trade system.
As to a better solution, there is no perfect answer at the moment. A
more straightforward approach is certainly in order, such as a carbon
tax for all companies, but doing so might drive businesses that ether
lack the ability to reform or simply do not want to spend the money to
move production to other nations with looser emissions laws. Overall,
while we can definitively say that greenhouse gases need to be
reduced, a more solid solution still needs to be put into action, not
cap-and-trade.
As to whether or not the US should agree to a global treaty dealing
with climate change, I think this is a necessity. The United States
needs to make a commitment on the world stage or progress may not be
made at all. International pressure needs to be a factor when
continuing to make environmental reforms. It can confidently be stated
that the United States needs to be doing more in terms of "green"
reforms on a national level. We are the second largest emitter of
carbon dioxide behind China, and I really doubt they are going to be
as willing to cut back and factor the environment into their
blossoming economy. We need to set an example for the world that being
aware of the impact on the environment is crucial and changing
businesses to benefit this issue is in fact possible. In order to make
a change not only in our nation, but also world wide, the US was a
duty to sign onto a global treaty addressing climate change.

[mclax...@aol.com]

Imposing in a cap-and-trade program, which is putting a cap or
limit on the amount of gasses a company emits, is necessary for the
government. This would be done by giving companies 85% of their
emissions of the gasses free while the other 15% would have to be
bought, auctioned, or traded which the government predicts will limit
the amount of gas that goes into the atmosphere. I believe the
government should definitely put some form of cap on the emissions of
gas. If they don't slow it down somehow, the greenhouse effect will
continue to raise the temperature on earth and the environment will
suffer. I do not think that the government should force companies to
auction off as much as 15% of their emissions however. I think it
should be 5-10% in order for companies to cooperate. I believe that
although small percentages, these percentages will add up and help the
environment. These small percentages will allow smaller companies to
still activate. Cap and trade was tested and proven to be successful
in the 1990s and the Economist magazine stated that it was "probably
the greatest green success story of the past decade."
I believe that their should be a global treaty to address
climate in the world. However, I do not believe their should be a set
of rules for all countries to follow but instead a specific set of
rules for each country. I believe this because different countries
emit different levels of gasses into the atmosphere. Therefore
countries should be measured on the percentage that they change or the
amount of "green" they go to help the environment. Why is a treaty
necessary for the U.S.? Well, as a main producer of gasses that travel
into the atmosphere, it should be the U.S.'s responsibility to redeem
themselves. In 1997, the U.S. failed to sign the Kyoto Protocol, a
global treaty designed to cut greenhouse gasses by 7%. The U.S., may
have a created a bad image from this in adressing climate change, so
participating in a treaty would be helpful and very possible for the
U.S.. For example, In 2009, the U.S. cut its CO2 emissions by 7
percent and this is a sign that the U.S. is making a difference and is
willing to participate in a global treaty to fight climate change.

[Katherine Singh]

Personally, I think the cap-and-trade solution is fine in theory but
often gets lost in execution. The idea of buying and selling emission
level allowances could lead to innovation and competiton to have the
least emission levels as supporters have said. However, in practice
cap-and-trade programs have often costed more than the sparse results
are worth. There are often coorporations that take the cheaper route
of buying more emissions rights from smaller, more eficient
companies. The larger compaines don't become any more efficient, and
the smaller companies can't compete with such big companies.
Basically, the small companies doing their part to lower emissions and
go along with the system are the ones who are hurt. The large
companies exploit the system and the cheap carbon credits, putting
small businesses at a disadvantage for still using the cheaper
greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, the cap-and-trade strategy is
succeptible to ocrruption and explotation if not all companies are
respecting and following the system. Current programs are more
burdening the countries theyre in than helping. A global treaty to
help the environment might take more time and cooperation as well as
careful gauging of the amount of money each country can put into the
program. Still, I think a government enforced worldwide effort would
work a lot better than an uncontrolled operation almost always taken
over by corruption. I need to emphasize that the gvernment take an
active role in upholding each country's relief efforts and
requirements which include punishment for not meeting the
requirements. Without sufficient government, widecale problems wont
get solved, and without enforcement, things are even more vulnerable
to exploitation.

[Alex Kim]

I think that the U.S. and other governments around the world have a
huge responsibility to reduce their carbon emissions. The U.S., being
the biggest producer of greenhouse gases is in dire need of some sort
of a carbon tax to reduce emissions. However, I think that it would
not necessarily be in the government's best interests to impose a cap-
and-trade system today. For one, the economy is already hurting, and a
carbon tax would put American companies at even more of a disadvantage
to foreign countries. I think that the U.S. can also commit to global
treaties to address climate change. However, I do not think that one
can expect companies to be able to rid themselves of using fossil
fuels in today's world. Renewable resources are simply not efficient
enough or cheap enough to be as effective as fossil fuels at this
point in time. Basically, even though the U.S. really should impose a
cap-and-trade system, it simply is not the right time, and it probably
would not work well.