Thursday, January 18, 2007

Put up or Shut up

Yesterday in class I may have said something about the Dems' opportunity to put up or shut up about climate change - looks like they will put up . Thanks to Jon Rogers for finding this article. As it happens the WSJ has a similar story on the frontpage today.

5 comments:

Jamie Mallinson said...

One possible idea would be to use a tax or some other form of making people pay for their excess pollution and then putting this money into research for finding better sources of energy. This policy would attack the pollution problem from two angles by giving financial incentives to minimize pollution as well as finding better, cleaner energy sources.

Anonymous said...

Despite some of the admitted consequences of a permit system for CO2 emissions, it seems that among the possible options, President Bush should like a permit system. A push to improve environmental quality in the near future seems inevitable, and a permit system would seem to be the most economically efficient and viable option. Also interesting is that Bush doesn't want to support the permit system because he believes that it will shift jobs and pollution from country to country "without slowing worldwide growth in emissions." But with a well-planned and well-executed permit system, we can actually CHOOSE our level of emissions... so I'm a little confused...?

Martha

Anonymous said...

Martha - just think if you are confused - how confused W must be.

sarah tilbor said...

The first thing that I thought was interesting was the joining of "scientists and evangelical pastors" to discuss the issue of global climate change. I always think of science and religion as being difficult to combine and discuss together. But, those people must realize the extent of the problem.
The second issue that came to mind was an article in the New York Times business section today. The article, "A Coalition For Firm Limit On Emissions" talks about changes that a group of companies are initiating. And this gives me hope that whatever happens with the government, these companies are still informed and attempting to make a difference. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/business/19carbon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Kris Brake said...

There is obviously no one right answer to this problem. A permit system would allow market forces to play a role in the allotment of carbon emissions, but would at the same time have obvious consequences. Taxes will give firms less incentive to emit carbom while at the same time providing money for further research into the problem. However, larger firms may determine that paying the tax is advantageous to their bottom line and simply continue to emit. It is extremely difficult to determine an appropriate level of taxation and would take lots of tinkering as well as changes over time.
By the way, I don't know what Mr. Dingell is talking about... flying fish would be totally sweet.