International columnist Emily Sieg backs cap & trade, green technologies.
Emily Sieg, Staff Writer - debut column
Ideology: Liberal\Progressive | Writing From: Dusseldorf, Germany
Among predictions for the future of the ozone-depleted earth lies perhaps the most tragic consideration that those who will be most adversely affected by global warming are the ones who have contributed the least to greenhouse gas emissions. Thickly populated coastal regions around the world will be threatened by the heightening sea levels and hostile weather patterns. Take for example the already treacherous monsoon rains in Bangladesh, which if climate change predictions hold true, will worsen with the added effect of flooding from the Bay of Bengal. From one extreme to another, consider increasing desertification in Africa, where millions of people are at risk of losing their homes due to the ever-expanding sands of the Sahara Desert. Also take into account the Middle East, a region already renowned for instability, which is projected to suffer from acute water shortages. Forget wars of religion; ye who holds the water well, holds life itself.
The term ‘Global Warming’ brings to mind numerous issues, among them, ineffective environmentalist strategies including terrifying predictions of the future followed by the portrayal of corporations as the great profit-maximizing evil. Desperate and unrelenting missionaries of An Inconvenient Truth do an injustice to what it means to be green. The pragmatic heart of genuine environmentalism does not desire to scare politicians and companies into pursuing green policies with horrific, although possibly true, predictions like those above, but rather the will to prove that ultimately caring for the environment is mutually beneficial for all, and can even be profitable.
While there are those who deny that global warming is actually happening, no one can deny that the world’s supply of oil cannot sustain the Western and increasing global consumption of petroleum for more than a few decades. Simply ignoring the problem or citing temporary losses in GDP in order to develop alternative energy is short-sighting idiocy. One day not to far from now, oil prices will truly skyrocket followed by the exhaustion petrol reserves. When that day comes, the countries that refused to wean their industries off oil and other fossil fuels will be forced to make shock adjustments to meet energy needs. When that day comes, Europe will already have converted to solar panels and wind farms and America will sit in the lurch making last-minute adjustments. And as last-minute attempts usually run into unexpected problems, one can only imagine the difficulty awaiting the United States. So why do so many people insist on the short-term benefits that drive long-term potential to the ground? That is indeed a good question.
The current United States Congress does not particularly fit the model of efficiency or even reasonability. The recent tendency to shove mammoth bills through as fast as possible is a shame. As Politicizer staff writer Cynthia Meyer wrote the other day, “[Congress] must act quickly because they know…they will lose their popularity.” The current Congress, with its Democrat majority, seems more interested in avenging the reign of George Bush than actually advocating the will of their constituents. The upper hand over Republicans in Congress has turned the Democrats into frenzied, mass spending, unreflective and inconsiderate entity. To a true environmentalist and advocate of the need for government regulation or even Cynthia, a Southern-state conservative, the current actions of the Congress are clearly more detrimental than constructive. The manner in which the current Congress conducts itself only lends ammunition to conservatives, who advocate the short-term benefits of an oil-loving society, which for all its irresponsibility might seem a more reasonable alternative to Congress’s currently reckless actions.
For example, instead of passing gargantuan stimulus bills that serve only to spew money into the economy from every angle, (which ultimately will do little –if any– good when compared to the massive inflation that they will incur,) the government should invest money in domestic green technology. Not only would a boosted alternative energy sector create thousands of jobs from bureaucratic company secretaries to frontier technology scientists, but the development of domestic energy would decrease dependence on foreign fuels, namely oil. And although here is not the place to belabor the point, the petro-dollars funneled into Saudi Arabia do seem somewhat counterproductive to that ‘War on Terror.’
The United States, once a surplus exporter of green technologies, now holds a green trade deficit of approximately $9 billion, two-thirds of which resides in a deficit of renewable energies. This deficit is particularly harsh, when considering the $14 billion green trade surplus the United States held in 1997. While green exporting countries may now hold the advantage over American alternative technologies, these foreign firms would like to bring back environmentalism to America. Consider the German SolarWorld, which opened the largest North American solar cell plant in Oregon, in the hopes of promoting a ‘Made-in-America’ commercial campaign. The Japanese firm Sanyo has also attempted to produce in the United States in order to acquire that big-selling ‘Made-in-America’ tag. If conservatives are concerned about losing jobs overseas, it is unfounded. Production in the United States will probably always be cheaper than in Germany or Japan. These foreign firms want to go to America, not pay for Americans to work abroad. Imagine sweeping plains of wind farms and solar fields of the Southwest. Furthermore, if the Germans want to spend the installation costs of green technology, what does the United States have to lose? Pride? And what is to be gained from refusal? Daft arrogance?
It cannot be denied, that successful environmentalist policies do not lend themselves to isolationism. By the sheer nature of global climate change, states are required to coordinate their actions. Unfortunately, ‘states’ is usually a euphemism for the United States, which, as the most environmentally unfriendly industrialized country in the world, does not even seem concerned that per capita every American pollutes four times as much as a Chinese citizen. Just like the League of Nations, the Kyoto Protocol was a good idea, until the United States decided it would not take part.
From that same Kyoto Protocol, the enthusiastic European Union developed a market to regulate pollution. The Cap and Trade system sets limits on pollution for multiple industries like steel and paper manufacture, and then puts these limits on the market. Through cap and trade a firm can pollute less than is permitted by the cap, and then sell the difference to another company which may pollute more than the cap. Thus, environmentally friendly firms increase their profit through the sale of pollution allowances and less efficient firms must pay to continue polluting above the cap. Additionally, firms that do not abide by the cap and trade program are fined for their excess emissions. The idea behind fines is not an attempt to squeeze firms dry, but rather a method to maintain faith in the system and create incentive to play by the rules. The European model even passes through several stages, to ease the transition and most efficiently keep the market running.
The American Environmental Protection Agency has indeed established its own Cap and Trade programs for many years with commendable results. The levels of nitrogen oxide emissions in Northeastern states have decreased some 60% over 2000 levels and sulfur dioxide levels have decreased approximately 50% from 1990 levels, predominantly in the Midwest. More importantly, business did not come to a halt or fold under regulation; the market held up just fine. The statistics even seem promising, but what makes the European model stronger is that on the other side of the Atlantic, states are attempting to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. Reducing other greenhouse gases is laudable, but carbon dioxide presents the greatest emissions problem for the EU, USA and China. Furthermore, for all the red-tape of the EU legislation process, their cap and trade system works with relative efficiency. The current attempts of the American Congress to expand Cap and Trade shall probably in its haste marginalize already upset Republicans and tarnish a system which has already proven effective abroad and within the United States itself.
Environmentalism in America needs to be cast anew, separate from Al Gore and the Democrats. Instead of attempting to scare politicians into action and policies into enactment, environmentalists need to make the case that alternative energy is the future success of industry. Democrats cannot continue to push around Republicans like a little brother and expect efficient legislation and cooperative red States. Yet on the other side of the same coin, Republicans cannot cling to their short-term profits and dismiss every ‘liberal’ idea just because of a currently out-of-hand Democrat party. Hopefully the next congressional elections will lead to a more equivalent dispersal of Democrats and Republicans where bills will actually have to be discussed and desires compromised. As market rules show, an absolute monopoly never runs efficiently.
Furthermore new international schemes must be ratified to ensure global participation. The Kyoto Protocol was not flawless in its conception and is in need of an update. Countries like the United States, China and India must be engaged and convinced to cooperate in international environmental efforts – even if that means accepting Japanese or European assistance. It is imperative that individual states realize that greenhouse gas emissions are not domestic affairs, but rather the cause of a global problem. States must swallow their pride and admit that when it comes to the environment, there really are no ‘domestic interests.’ International cooperation is necessary to develop both new alternative technologies and effective emission-reduction treaties that will prevent the further pollution and destruction of our planet.
The choices remain:
Rely on sensationalism or reason?
Live for today or tomorrow?
Quarrel like school rivals or cooperate for mutual benefits?
Isolation coupled with domestic interest or integration and a cleaner, greener planet?