This debate over how to balance the dual imperatives for growth and emissions control is analogous to the debate over the logging industry vs. rainforest stability, (potentially economically damaging) regulations vs. polluted ecosystems, and oil independence vs. preserving wildlife refuges (for instance, the ANWR). In my English class, we recently discussed the conflicts and the importance of framing them to not be seen as mutually exclusive.
Beyond such framing, however, aligning economics and environmentalism is the most productive compromise solution. Cap-and-trade, though much maligned by the right, does seek to do just this. It provides economic incentives for companies and factories to be environmentally sustainable. In other words, environmentalism helps their bottom line. The problem, of course, is that while under a cap-and-trade regime corporations have profit incentives to cut emissions, it is still far more costly compared to a pre-cap-and-trade system. As a result, the political incentives to cut emissions don't exist.
Perhaps one answer is to pair any cap-and-trade or emission regulations bill with concessions to the GOP. President Obama might consider attaching Keystone XL approval or increased drilling on federal lands, both priorities of the GOP, to help placate right-wing opposition.
However, even more fundamentally than band-aid political fixes, our society needs to develop technology that makes efficiency and pollution reduction actually profitable without the government manipulating the market (as in cap-and-trade). CO2 scrubbers that improve the output of powerplants, car engines that burn less fuel by increasing MPG, and more are all in the future. It is up to government, academia, and business to develop these solutions that can ensure this country -- and our world -- can both grow a great economy and preserve a great environment.
Beyond such framing, however, aligning economics and environmentalism is the most productive compromise solution. Cap-and-trade, though much maligned by the right, does seek to do just this. It provides economic incentives for companies and factories to be environmentally sustainable. In other words, environmentalism helps their bottom line. The problem, of course, is that while under a cap-and-trade regime corporations have profit incentives to cut emissions, it is still far more costly compared to a pre-cap-and-trade system. As a result, the political incentives to cut emissions don't exist.
Perhaps one answer is to pair any cap-and-trade or emission regulations bill with concessions to the GOP. President Obama might consider attaching Keystone XL approval or increased drilling on federal lands, both priorities of the GOP, to help placate right-wing opposition.
However, even more fundamentally than band-aid political fixes, our society needs to develop technology that makes efficiency and pollution reduction actually profitable without the government manipulating the market (as in cap-and-trade). CO2 scrubbers that improve the output of powerplants, car engines that burn less fuel by increasing MPG, and more are all in the future. It is up to government, academia, and business to develop these solutions that can ensure this country -- and our world -- can both grow a great economy and preserve a great environment.
