Climate Change Opportunity Response

 Jamund Ferguson
Jill Sterrett
CEP 498: Planning for Sustainable Communities
Written Assignment #1: Op-ed Response

In Paul Krupp’s April 8th Op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Krupp argues in favor of a “cap-and-trade” system for regulating carbon emissions. His thesis is that climate is a serious problem that needs to be addressed and that this can be done without disturbing the economy. Mr. Krupp, who heads the Environmental Defense Fund, believes that we are on the cusp of a major energy revolution and that many great technological breakthroughs are right on the edge of profitability. To speed this process however and avoid unnecessary climate impacts the author argues that a cap-and-trade system would benefit both the environment and the economy.

His detractors comments published in subsequent days remind us that higher European energy costs have not brought forward an elegant solution to the problem of CO2 emissions from automotive vehicles in that part of the world. They argue that even with the cap in place, many companies would simply buy the right to pollute more, and pass that on as a tax to the consumer. In Europe it was claimed, people pay up to $9/gallon for gasoline. The added tax even at the highest rate now suggested by congress, his detractors claim, would a) not even bring us up to current European gasoline prices and b) therefore not generate the kind of innovation needed to solve the problem. This is because one man claimed there is no solution to the problem.

I disagree however on the European issue and on the issue of the economic viability of low-carbon technology. The EPA claims that “Transportation activities (excluding international bunker fuels) accounted for 33 percent of CO emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2006.” According to the Department of Energy the United States produces 85% of its electricity using fossil fuels. This combination does not put us in an equivalent situation to Europe (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html). In France, 90% of the electricity is produced from nuclear energy, which produces little to no climate changing GHGs. While I do not have the figures handy, it is clear to anyone that has spent any sort of time in Europe that all the major cities are massively pedestrianized and filled with public transportation options. Clearly Europe has invested money differently than the states when it comes to energy and transportation policy.

As far as the economic viability of solutions I believe that Paul Krupp is right. We are on the verge of numerous technological breakthroughs. In a very interesting interview with T.J. Rodgers of SunPower Corp. posted on conservative National Review Online as part of a series called, “The Free-Market Case for Green”, Rodgers emphasized the fairness of a cap-and-trade system on all energy companies and seemed to feel that it would support a wide number of solutions including nuclear and solar. I believe that a cap-and-trade system would likely highly favor the nuclear power energy, but also support many new technologies. The scale of the climate change problem must require a long and serious debate over the viability of nuclear power as a partial or full solution to this problem. Along with the energy industry it seems that every Fortune 500 is working on some “green” project and hiring someone to manage their sustainability initiative. In the Global Environmental Governance book we read about how policies could not succeed without the support of business. The most directly impacted industries (oil & transportation) seem to be taking the lead in the PR campaign to support climate change initiatives. Hybrid Cars and BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” campaign have served to remind me that businesses back some approach to climate change. They acknowledge the problem and are willing to work toward solutions. It is clear to me that the government already has the support it needs from American businesses if it were to choose to go ahead with this legislation. The bigger problem may be convincing its citizens.

Any such change to current policy is going to require a massive PR campaign to sell American citizens on the plan. The more I read the various responses to this and other environmental articles, it becomes clear that climate change is not something that is widely equally in all parts of the country. Al Gore’s film as celebrated as it has been is not universally adored. Many people question his authenticity and credibility. They often question the motives behind many of the proposals given by environmentalists on the issues at hand. I believe that there minds can be changed with some more media campaigns and information. It is too bad that many extremists on both sides of the debate have turned this into something that many people refuse to consider.

Another massive hole in Krupp’s plan say his opponents is its complete failure to mention any other country than the United States. Recently the headlines have told us that China has overtaken the United States with regard to green house gas emissions. Is there any purpose in acting without them? Mr. Krupp’s answer, I suspect, would be twofold. 1) There is much to be gained from acting now for our economy and national security. Sounding like an optimist Mr. Krupp’s position seems to be that great innovations will be coming forward to overcome whatever cost the system might put forward. This is not only about the environment. It is about our country’s future. 2) By leading the way, China will have an example to follow. If we can show them how to “go green," they will have a more sure way to follow. Also by beginning this process they will face a great deal more pressure internationally to limit their emissions as well. Ultimately this will lead to them signing on to a similar international treaty in the next few years. National security is another factor that would be sidestepped in a sense by only addressing the United States. Would we prefer China to use nuclear energy instead of coal for example? What could the side effects to national security be if that were to be the case? Alternatively if Al Gore is right and Beijing and Shanghai could be flooded soon, can we really run the risk of mass migration? Both sides present serious national security concerns that will have to be addressed.

The main reason to support a cap-and-trade system in my view would not be to promote the economic growth of the green industry. I agree with those that say that if a technology is economically viable it will be developed without the need for interference from government. I believe that the best reason to support a cap-and-trade system is to protect ourselves from the unforeseen side effects of global climate change. We need not wait to take action. Economically viable solutions are on the way and many are currently available. It is time that the government step in to protect all of us from the unknown risks of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The proposal suggested by Mr. Krupp is not the final answer to the climate change problem, but an equitable and intelligent way to begin addressing it.