Why protecting the environment is a political issue.
When we take into consideration the indiscriminate manner in which we are all effected and effect the environment, a debate as come up about the future of how we protect the planet we call home, quite frankly the topic has become a divisive “hot-button” campaign issue. I see the division most when environmentalists are now being labeled as Liberals regardless of where they stand on other issues. On the other side, conservatives are condemned by peers for believing in climate change. I believe the period between the 1970s (when President Nixon brought the EPA into fruition) to present day, has displayed just how politicalized and polarized the topic of the environment has become.
When boiled down, tackling issues pertaining to the environment was begun to be increasingly more challenging due to the “nature” of the dilemmas changing; problems that once were primarily scientific and technocratic in nature have become political. In this paper, I wish to divulge into what we believe to be a viable solution to climate change, as well as its correlation to policy whether that be failed for successful. By using examples of failed legislation I wish to provide a more nuanced understanding of why addressing environmental issues has become so increasingly challenging.
The example I wish to present is that of the failed implementation of a nationwide “cap and trade” program. This offers us a good examination of an issue that is defined and in relation to American environmental policymaking. Cap and trade is defined as a policy tool that has been designed to place a total “cap” on carbon emissions while facilitating the “trade” of pollution allowances. In essence, it is a mechanism created in an attempt to align economic rationality with collective rationality regarding proper emission management. Sounds easy enough right? Unfortunately, this just is not the case.
We have seen many variations of a cap and trade policy enacted over the past view decades, ranging from the deduction of lead in gasoline, to acts to cut emissions of sulfur dioxide and even implementations of fishery management. Taking into account the successful examples of cap and trade I have brought up, you may be wondering why it is so hard to implement on a wider scale. Let us look at why this policy has failed to pass in the U.S by exploring where it has gone wrong.
In theory, the concept of pricing carbon does make sense. It incentivizes shifts to lower carbon technologies while letting the market decide which ones will generate the most positive environmental gains. As a result of the notion that the system harnesses the market to aid the planet, it has accumulated endorsements from all across the spectrum. With a few major advocates include, GreenPeace, ExxonMobil, rich nation, poor nation, and many democrats and republicans alike. Essentially, every major multilateral institution is supporting carbon pricing.
It is in the practice that we begin to see the flaws of the system; there seems to be a problem with the idea of simply slashing carbon emission by putting a price tag on them: this doesn’t do much to actually help climate change. If governments made a conscious effort to impose carbon pricing that are sufficiently high enough to affect a broad enough swath of our economy, then those prices could really make a difference environmentally. However, the ongoing political concerns have defiantly kept governments from doing such. Leading to pricing that is far too low to make any real impact. carbon pricing should not be abandoned, it can at least help channel money into cleaner energy options. But it should not be the main tool in our effort to keep the planet cool.
To conclude, I wish to present a few solutions. Policymakers will need to find a way to harness the viability of renewable energy such as solar, wind, and nuclear energy. Decarbonizing our transportation would also prove extremely viable. It is true that electric cars and solar panels are set to proliferate as their prices fall, and as a result, batteries are still too expensive and not able to store the amount of energy we are producing. So this too must be researched (funding and investments are crucial). I also think that raising the price of gasoline would be very beneficial since we will always have a need for oils, Since we don’t need as much crude oil as we extract. We would also see results in ratcheting up efforts unrelated to energy, like combating deforestation. While it will not be an easy task to undertake I do believe these solutions would be viable endeavors in our effort to combat anthropogenic climate change.
Citations:
Barry G. Rabe – “Can We Price Carbon?”
