Key Issues at the Environment and Public Works Committee - Assignment Example

Key environmental issues the USA will be focusing on are issues affecting not only global climate, but also energy costs in the USA, and health of the general American population (Lazarus 59). Most important five topics will be emissions, research and development of efficient fuels and new technologies, early deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology, transportation efficiency, and lastly, international cooperation. Action requires cooperation of all stakeholders. The industry and households produce most of the pollution. However, without governmental action and oversight, most will not feel compelled to act. Several factors need to be considered in the evaluation of policies. Such factors are: cost efficiency and implementation prospects. Moreover, an important criterion of this entire analysis is compatibility of the proposed policies. Emissions The primary goal of the USA is to significantly decrease emission levels. The USA has decreased carbon dioxide emission levels from 2005 to 2009 by 9.46% (US Energy Information Administration). Since the 1970’s, the quality of environment in the USA has improved significantly (Lazarus). However, this is only a slight success. By 2020, emissions should be reduced by 20% of the 2005 level (Bianco). In 2006, the State of California passed an even more ambitious Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act, targeting 80% reduction by 2050 (Air Resources Board). There are several possibilities in approaching the problem of carbon dioxide emissions. Upstream approach, which affects directly the producers, instead of the consumers, should be favored. There are millions of polluters in the USA, with personal cars beings some of them on the consumer side (Domenici and Bingaman 4). Such an approach reduces the number of sources that need to be regulated. Stanton and Ackerman named two possible solutions: carbon tax and emission allowances under the cap – and – trade system. The effects of tax are hard to predict. The tax would target carbon users according to their estimated carbon production. However, emission levels cannot be controlled in such a system (Dinan VII). While tax might induce companies to move to wind or solar power, it might also induce them to simply move to another country with lower costs of production. Cap-and-trade system is a prominent approach to pollution control (USCAP 2). USCAP argues that one allowance could be created for each ton of GHG emissions. Then, emitters would be allowed to emit only as much as their allowance is worth. Since some companies produce fuel, which then emits GHG on the consumer – side of the chain, producers could be priced according to the emission levels of this fuel (Dinan VII). The system should be strict and encompass all stakeholders within federal government’s reach. In order to reach significant reduction targets, the system should encompass most major pollution producers. One of the ways to achieve such policy success is to allow companies which manage to reduce emissions to sell unnecessary allowances and profit from their environmental friendliness. Tax deductions could also be offered to these companies. The early arrivals to the system should be rewarded. Early arrivals should be offered lower prices than late arrivals. Some other benefits could be offsets and derivatives on emission levels. Moreover, to assist companies, the federal government could provide discounts in form of carbon capture and sequestration technology implementation subsidies. Such a system would be self sustainable, but requires a change in legislation. According to Stanton and Ackerman, if allowed price of carbon emission is increased to $75 per a ton, by 2020 approximately $60 billion in revenue would be collected, and the emission target would be achieved (2). Consumers can be encouraged to boycott non - compliers. An incentive in terms of rebates from the carbon price could be given to consumers to support this policy. The government would be left with $12 billion after rebates (Stanton and Ackerman 2). However, currently $41 is the highest allowed price, which should be changed. This system is already in place in some states and is thus viable. Six states and the Canadian province of Manitoba signed in 2007 the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and launched the cap – and trade system (Stanton and Ackerman 10). Economic and Technology Advancement and Advisory Committee recommended this type of a system in 2008 to be adopted in California as well (4). Since EPA should stay in charge, this stand is closest to the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act put forth in Congress. Moreover, the cap – and – trade system has a track record of success. This type of a system was used in the 1990’s to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions in the USA (Stanton and Ackerman 9; Dinan VIII). This policy is also internationally recognized: the EU adopted this policy with regard to the carbon dioxide (Dinan VIII). Research and Development of Efficient Fuels and New Technologies Some states cannot afford carbon reductions and thus require assistance. According to Stanton and Ackerman, approximately 30% of American households’ carbon emissions come from electricity, 25% from gasoline, and 45% from remaining sources (4). Dependence on coal varies from state to state. As mentioned previously, $12 billion would be left from the allowance system. This amount could be used by the federal government toward research and development of alternative and more efficient fuel types. Investment can focus on following energy types. Hydrogen production plant using coal gasification technology with near-zero emissions could be finished under federal government’s partnership (Hildebrand 30). So far, renewable energy, excluding nuclear power from this definition, generates 8.3% of electricity in the USA (Hildebrand 13). The US Department of the Interior views wind power and geothermal power plants as areas worth investing in because of efficiency and low costs to the environment and the consumers. California is one of the states already operating geothermal power plants (The US Departments if the Interior). Solar power is seen as useful, but inefficient and expensive (The US Department of the Interior). If funding is available, it can be allocated to research on more efficient solar energy production. Early Deployment of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technology Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology can be promoted to assist companies in emissions reduction while companies are searching for alternative energy sources. CCS separates carbon dioxide produced in plants by coal combustion (Hildebrand 10). This prevents the gas from entering the atmosphere, where it would contribute to climate change. Though still not implemented, the goal is to capture 90% of carbon dioxide emissions at each plant using this technology (Hildebrand 10). So far, success has been meager. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allotted $3.4 billion to the CCS development, which has not led to wide use of CCS (Hildebrand 26). Another problem is that CCS decreases net output at a plant by 24-30% (Hildebrand 68). Partial implementation would be more cost effective. A smaller capture rate of 45% significantly reduces costs and increases efficiency and could thus be acceptable (Hildebrand 105). Moreover, coal plants could then be built in the short term, until the US becomes mostly reliant on other sources. Transportation Efficiency It is important to reduce emissions resulting from transportation. Transportation is one of the largest contributors to GHG emissions in the US (Raborn 1). Investment in infrastructure would not reduce GHG significantly (Raborn 3). Instead, Raborn recommends focusing on fuel and vehicle efficiency (2). Raborn argues that if applied aggressively, these policies could reduce overall US emissions by 12.4% by 2020 (2). Some of these policies have already been discussed under the previous recommendations. Thus, this policy is in line with the rest of the recommendations and issues. International Cooperation So far, the US signals to the rest of the world have been mixed. The US exited the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 (Brunnee 617). Instead, the US engages in multilateral action on specific issues. The US was a catalyst in international partnership aiming to decrease mercury emissions and use (EPA). The US, Canada, and Mexico in 2000 created a North American Regional Action Plan (NARAP) on mercury, aiming to reduce mercury emissions by monitoring all processes of mercury use and disposal (EPA). However, the US actions serve as an action signal to other countries. In 2011, Canada announced its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol with an intention to follow the US (Black). The cause also partly lies in the arbitrariness of Kyoto: according to Brunnee, the Kyoto emission targets are unachievable by many countries, and were not based on scientific evidence (618). It is to be seen if more countries will follow suit. NARAP might be perceived as an example of US indifference towards opinion and resources of other countries in combating mercury emissions. It is imperative for the USA to cooperate with other countries. For example, mercury emissions and ocean acidification affect tourism and fishing industry of California, the wider US and the world (Miller). Moreover, if emissions do not decrease sufficiently, global temperature will increase by more than 2 degrees Celsius, producing economic losses to everyone (Wilmer 1). But the USA cannot solve these problems alone. Conclusion The USA is still a long way from success. The cap – and trade system, additional investment in alternative energy sources and CCS need to be implemented aggressively to reach the 2020 target. Whereas solutions are plentiful, it is of outmost importance that they complement each other. So far, neither of the recommendations conflict with priorities and projects of the State of California or the average American citizen (Leiserowitz et al. 11). Moreover, environmental problems require international cooperation, as problems are shared internationally. Works Cited Air Resources Board. Assembly Bill 3: Global Warming Solutions Act. California Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 13 Mar 2012. Bianco, Nicholas. Midwestern Green House Gas Reduction Accord. World Resources Institute, 28 Oct 2009. Web. 12 Mar 2012. Black, Richard. Canada to withdraw from Kyoto Protocol. BBC, 13 December 2011. Web. 12 Mar 2012. Brunnee, Jutte. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resulting from Different Infrastructure Spending Levels.” European Journal of International Law 15 (2004):617 – 649. Dinan, Terry. Policy Options for Reducing Emissions. Congressional Budget Office, Feb 2008.Web. 12 Mar 2012. Domenici, Pete and Bingaman Jeff. Design Elements of a Mandatory Market-Based Greenhouse Gas Regulatory System. Feb 2006.Web. 12 Mar 2012. Economic and Technology Advancement and Advisory Committee. Recommendations. California Environmental Protection Agency, 14 Feb 2008. Web. 13 Mar 2012. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). International Actions for Reducing Mercury Emissions and Use. EPA, 7 Feb 2012. Web. 12 Mar 2012. Wilmer, Hale. The Copenhagen Climate Change Agreement: Failure or Success? Climate Change Alert, 21 Dec 2009. Web. 14 Mar 2012. Lazarus, Richard. The Making of Environmental Law. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2004. Print. Leiserowitz, Anthony, et al. Americans’ Knowledge of Climate Change. Yale University, 2010. Web. 14 Mar 2012. Miller, Jerry. Study Finds Ocean Acidification Rate is Highest in 300 Million Years, CO2 is Culprit. US Global Research Program, 13 Mar 2012. Web. 14 Mar 2012. Raborn, Craig. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resulting from Different Infrastructure Spending Levels. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Jun 2011. Web. 12 Mar 2012. The US Department of the Interior. Renewable Energy Sources in the United States. The US Department of the Interior, 26 Jan 2011. Web. 12 Mar 2012. US Energy Information Administration (EIA). International Energy Statistics. EIA. Web. 11 Mar 2012. USCAP. Summary Overview: USCAP Blueprint for Legislative Action. USCAP,15 Jan 2009. Web. 11 Mar 2012. Stanton, Elisabeth and Ackerman, Frank. Emission Reduction, Interstate Equity, and the Price of Carbon. Economics for Equity and the Environment Network, Aug 2010. Web. 12 Mar 2012. Read More