President Obama has clearly stated his intention to “green up” America.  The cap and trade program is one of the ways in which he plans to oversee the greening of America.  The program has received mixed reviews from economic and environmental experts and only time will tell if the initiative will provide meaningful differences in the fight against climate change in an economically feasible manner.  The President has stated that his goal is to reduce U.S. emissions by 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below by 2050.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that “Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing emission sources flexibility in how they comply.”  After identifying the target group, a successful cap and trade program must establish a cap, or limit, on the amount of emissions for all sources within that group. The operational concept of the program rests on the assumption that it will be easier for some companies to establish effective mechanisms for limiting their emissions than for others.  Companies that manage to emit less than their cap are able to sell the difference to companies who are struggling to maintain their emissions within the established cap.

This past Friday, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the proposal but not without President Obama’s intense lobbying in its favor.  A recent Wall Street Journal article notes that the win in the House was not an easy one for the President; indeed, he even had to convince many within his own party to support the proposal.  Many business leaders caution that the bill, if passed in the Senate and codified into law, would cost American taxpayers significantly.  The Wall Street Journal quoted a statement of the National Mining Association which warns of the cost of the program:  “’It will affect every aspect of the American economy, harming our ability to compete in the world and provide secure and affordable energy to American consumers and businesses.’” The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that in 2020, the annual cost to implement the program will be a $175 per household, an estimate that naysayers contend is very low. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Today is Earth Day and as the urgency of the climate change problem looms heavily over the entire world, it is a day that should not go without notice.  This year’s Earth Day represents the beginning of a two-year initiative called the Green Generation Campaign.  The campaign was established in the same spirit as the “Greatest Generation” that met the challenges facing the world in the years during and following the conclusion of World War II; individuals working together to create meaningful change in the fight to slow and halt climate change.  Through individual and collective efforts, supporters of the Green Generation Campaign will take measures to reduce their impact on the environment (for a list of ways you can make changes to reduce your own carbon footprint, see the Earth Day 2009 website).   APUS was an early participant in the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) and believes that its online form of instruction is ideally suited to assist in the reduction of its carbon footprint (see my blog article about APUS’ involvement in the ACUPCC).

The first Earth Day was celebrated on this day in 1970; since then, Earth Day has come to be celebrated around the world.  In the years following the celebration of the first Earth Day, the United States took an active role in the discussion on climate change.  In 1970, Congress established the Clean Air Act to set national air quality, auto emission and anti-pollution standards.  In 1980, Congress established the Superfund, designated with the task of cleaning up hazardous waste sites.  In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Pollution Prevention Act which emphasized the importance of preventing, not just correcting, environmental damage. 

Read the rest of this entry »