Cap and Trade – Just Fooling Ourselves or Reasonable First Step?

Earlier this week the The House Energy and Commerce Committee narrowly approved a bill that, if enacted later this year, will -- among other things -- establish a cap-and-trade program. This program aims to limit the growth in polluting emissions, but does very little to reduce those emissions – the goal is a reduction of 17 percent by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050. But is that too little too late?

A debate is looming in Congress, in the scientific community, and the public over what is the correct approach to stopping the oncoming train known as global warming
Many industry groups are against the bill because it places burdens on business. Many environmentalists are supportive, because they believe it makes good progress on the problem. But representatives on each side have broken from their organization’s positions in protest. Several environmental groups, including Greepeace, issued a statement criticizing the bill, saying, “the decision-making process was co-opted by oil and coal lobbyists determined to sustain our addiction to dirty fossil fuels.” This NY Times article sums up many of the positions nicely:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/politics/22climate.html?ref=politics

Physicist James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), recently claimed the bill and its cap-and-trade fix is simply small tweaks to the status quo. Hansen’s remarks were made during his acceptance speech upon receiving the Peter A. A. Berle Environmental Integrity Award, which he received for the courage and integrity he has shown over the years in the area of global warming. The whole of his speech was actually quite terrifying -- he paints a truly bleak picture. His remarks can be heard here (the intro gives you good background on Hansen, but it runs a bit long. His remarks begin around the six minute mark and run around 15 minutes.)

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=EV&pubid=253

The US has a history of trying to ignore the dangers of global warming because agreements don't do enough. We signed the Kyoto Protocol under Clinton’s administration, but it was never ratified because the members of the Senate objected to portions of the agreement. 183 countries to date have signed the protocol. Our abstention puts us in the company of Afghanistan, Andorra, Brunei, Chad, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, San Marino, Somalia, China, Vatican City, and Zimbabwe.

Personally I have the same internal debate going that Paul Krugman wrote about last week in his New York Times op-ed "The Perfect, The Good, The Planet"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/opinion/18krugman.html

How much is enough movement to support a bill? The pragmatist in me wants to see the current bill enacted because it is a meaningful first step and some movement in the right direction can have the effect of showing naysayers that the end did not come with added burdens on businesses. But is that enough in the face of such dire predictions?

The other recipient of the Peter A. A. Berle Environmental Integrity Award on Thursday was David Foster, who heads the Blue Green Alliance, a group dedicated to finding ways for labor and the environmental movement to work together on issues relating to global warning. Five years ago you would have been laughed out of the room if you suggested labor and greens could find common ground. Today, there is actually an organization! Foster believes some movement is better than none.

What do you think?
Carol Starmack