english essay
Leila@
untitled_message_11.zipenviremont sal.pdf
44
Lesson 3: New Technologies Do we need them to meet the climate challenge?
Copy Master - Lesson 3- Handout Position 1
POSITION #1: WE NEED FUNDAMENTALLY NEW TECHNOLOGIES
• Read and understand the handout.
• Identify the most important points made by the position represented.
• Think of potential strengths and weaknesses of the position.
• Prepare notes covering the points you plan to share with the larger group.
Some experts believe we will not be able to meet the climate challenge without fundamentally new technologies. The federal government is already funding research into new technologies that could help reduce carbon emissions. Research funded by the Department of Energy includes:
• Carbon sequestration—the capturing and storage of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases.
Options for storage include underground, in terrestrial carbon sinks (like growing forests), and in the ocean
• Improving efficiency of coal and natural gas power systems
• Developing fuel cells (such as hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric cars) that can generate electricity without burning fossil fuels.
• Developing more advanced nuclear power plants (nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases)
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu, formerly the US Secretary of Energy, has advocated for increased research and development of these and other technological solutions to slowing climate change:
• Using solar energy to generate chemical fuel at low cost
• Altering yeast and bacteria into organisms that produce gasoline and diesel
• Improving techniques for converting switchgrass and other perennial grass crops into fuel
• Using nanotechnology to improve efficiency of solar panels
• Developing better batteries for storing power
Chu has argued that this research must be supported by the federal government. He claims that private companies are “reluctant to invest in research into transformational technologies that may not see commercialization for 10 years, even though such technologies could dra- matically change the entire energy landscape.” To fill this gap, Chu believes that government support of research at universities and national laboratories is “our only hope to supply the science required to create transformative energy solutions.”
How much money would be needed for the research and development for new technolo- gies to move quickly for the point they were commercially practical? A recent report from the Brookings Institution suggests that $20 to $30 billion a year is necessary. For comparison, the total current budget for the entire Department of Energy is $25 billion a year. The 2014 federal budget was $3.77 trillion ($3,778 billion).
Sources:
Duderstadt, J., Muro, M., Was, G., Sarzynski, A., et al. Energy Discovery-Innovation Institutes: A Step
toward America’s Energy Sustainability. The Brookings Institution. 2009.
Mufson, S. "Concern for climate change defines new energy department nominee," Washington Post.
December 12, 2008.
Department of Energy. <http://www.energy.gov/sciencetech/climatechange.htm> Accessed March 9,
2009.
United States Office of Management and Budget, The Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, Summary Tables
accessed May 2014, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2014-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2014-BUD-29.pdf
45
Lesson 3: New Technologies Do we need them to meet the climate challenge?
Copy Master - Lesson 3- Handout Position 2
POSITION #2: WE NEED TO FUND EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOR A NEW GENERATION OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
• Read and understand the handout.
• Identify the most important points made by the position represented.
• Think of potential strengths and weaknesses of the position.
• Prepare notes covering the points you plan to share with the larger group.
The Breakthrough Institute, a think tank that aims to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy and to promote equitable and sustainable prosperity, has proposed a National Energy Education Act (NEEA). The proposal acknowledges the challenge of meeting the world’s energy needs in a way that does not accelerate global warming.
Advocates of expanding national energy education argue that the U.S. needs to be able to develop clean energy technologies to meet global energy needs without accelerating climate change. To do this, they often argue that the U.S. needs to increase support for STEM careers (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) through these goals:
• Improve quality of and access to education in fields related to energy:
– Increase financial aid and loan forgiveness for students in energy-related fields.
– Support the creation of new multidisciplinary courses of study focused on energy.
– Expand energy-related service learning and work-study opportunities.
– Provide improved training and resources for energy-related education in colleges.
• Increase funding for clean energy research and development at universities.
• Support the development of new workforce training programs in clean
energy industries.
– Increase funding for workforce training programs at technical and community colleges and worker retraining centers.
– Support partnerships with clean energy firms to develop training programs.
• Create “innovation pipelines” to move new products out of research labs and into private sector ventures.
– Support collaboration between government research facilities, universities, and industry to demonstrate new technologies that will be ready for widespread use in the near future.
– Create “research parks” and other forums to encourage communication and transfer of technology between private firms and university research labs.
Advocates of energy education argue that investment in the education of a new generation of scientists and engineers would eventually pay for itself. They argue that these highly-educated people would contribute to the development of new industries and technologies that will drive the U.S. economy in future decades.
It is concerning to proponents of energy education that many of the people currently working in STEM fields will be retiring in the near future. For example, 70% of civilian employees in the Department of Defense with STEM degrees will be eligible to retire in 2015.
One way to measure the amount of progress made in energy education is to observe the growth of those receiving higher education. In 2013, a record 21.8 million students attended colleges and universities, about a 6.5 percent annual growth rate from the year 2000.
Source:
National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Facts, http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372, accessed May 2014.
Policy Concept Draft: National Energy Education Act. The Breakthrough Institute. October 2008.
46
Lesson 3: New Technologies Do we need them to meet the climate challenge?
Copy Master - Lesson 3- Handout Position 3
POSITION #3: WE HAVE ALL THE TECHNOLOGY WE NEED TO START
DRAMATICALLY REDUCING EMISSIONS
• Read and understand the handout.
• Identify the most important points made by the position represented.
• Think of potential strengths and weaknesses of the position.
• Prepare notes covering the points you plan to share with the larger group.
Advocates of this position cite the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It states atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide could be stabilized at levels as low as 400 to 450 ppm using a range of technologies that are either currently available or are expected to be available in the coming decades. This position assumes the creation of appropriate and effective incentives for development and deployment of these technologies.
To meet stabilization goals, existing technologies would need to be employed on much larger scales than they are today. The technology portfolio needed to achieve stabilization goals would include:
• Energy Supply: improved efficiency, switching from coal to natural gas, nuclear power, renewable energy, carbon capture and storage
• Transportation: improved fuel efficiency, hybrid vehicles, biofuels, rail and public transportation, cycling, walking
• Buildings: improved efficiency, improved insulation, passive and active solar design, “intelligent” buildings that can maximize conservation and efficiency
• Industry: improved efficiency, heat and power recovery, material recycling, control of emissions, improved industrial processes
• Agriculture: improved efficiency, improved land management to increase carbon storage in soils, restoration of degraded lands, improved cultivation and livestock manure management techniques, improved fertilizer application techniques, energy crops to replace fossil fuels, improvements of crop yields
• Forestry: afforestation (planting trees where none were before), reforestation, reduced deforestation, forest management and tree species improvement to increase carbon storage
• Waste management: landfill methane recovery, burning waste for energy, composting organic waste, recycling, reducing waste, waste water recycling
Advocates of this position worry that an insistence that we need technology “breakthroughs” to successfully combat global warming could mean we will end up waiting too long. They argue that because we must dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions over the next 25 years, we cannot wait for the development of new technologies.
They examine the history of technology and claim rapid “breakthroughs” are very rare—instead technology improves slowly. Even when breakthroughs do happen, they rarely “transform” energy markets. They cite Royal Dutch/Shell, one of the world’s largest oil companies, reporting that it typically takes 25 years after commercial energy introduction for a new energy form to gain a 1% share of the global market.
They argue that the gains that have been made in energy efficiency and in clean, renewable, and alternative energy technologies have been the result of government mandates, subsidies, and incentives. They argue what is needed are regulations and policy that will encourage increased deployment and development of the
47
Lesson 3: New Technologies Do we need them to meet the climate challenge?
Copy Master - Lesson 3- Handout Position 3
technologies we already have or will soon have in the near future.
Estimates of the cost of implementing the technologies needed to stabilize the atmosphere at 550 ppm range from 1% to 5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the entire world. Meanwhile, economists predict that the impacts of climate change will cost the world anywhere from 5-20% of GDP each year.
Advocates argue that this cost would be far cheaper than the alternative—the collapse of the planet’s vital life-support systems.
Sources:
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Summary for Policy Makers, 2007.
Romm, Joseph. Breaking the technology breakthrough myth. Climate Progress, Center for American Progress. <http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/09/breaking- the-technology-breakthrough-myth-debunking-shellenberger-nordhaus-again/> Accessed March 11, 2009.
Stern, Nicholas. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom), October 30, 2006.
48
Lesson 3: New Technologies Do we need them to meet the climate challenge?
Copy Master - Lesson 3- Handout Position 4
POSITION #4: WE’VE WAITED TOO LONG—WE NEED GEO-ENGINEERING TO BUY TIME
• Read and understand the handout.
• Identify the most important points made by the position represented.
• Think of potential strengths and weaknesses of the position.
• Prepare notes covering the points you plan to share with the larger group.
Advocates of geo-engineering fear humanity is taking action too slowly to avoid catastrophic climate changes. They suggest that we could use geo-engineering as a last-chance effort to “buy time” by lowering the temperature on the planet while we try to figure out ways to lower our emissions. Examples of geo-engineering proposals include:
• Build huge floating islands in the ocean made from white plastic. The artificial islands would act like the rapidly disappearing Arctic sea ice. The sea ice reflects up to 90% of incoming solar radiation back into space and covers the dark- colored ocean (which can absorb up to 90% of incoming radiation).
• Send trillions of two-feet-wide lenses into orbit around the earth. The lenses would bend sunlight away from earth. Or build 55,000 mirrors in space, each about 100 km2 in size. Potential drawbacks would be the inability to adjust or remove the mirrors once they were in place and the potential they would fall back to earth.
• Use rockets to shoot sulfur particles into the stratosphere. The particles would block incoming solar radiation and have a similar cooling effect as the ash from the eruption of a volcano. The sulfur in the atmosphere would have the side- effect of producing acid rain and of destroying the ozone layer, allowing more damaging ultraviolet radiation to reach the earth.
• Cover deserts with reflective films to send more incoming radiation back into space.
• Bioengineer crops to have more reflective leaves.
• Fertilize the ocean with iron to encourage vast blooms of algae that would capture carbon dioxide. The plants would eventually die and sink to the bottom of the ocean, bringing their carbon with them. Side-effects might include killing the remaining ocean ecosystem.
• Wrap entire glaciers in white, insulating sheets.
• Build 134 million pipes floating vertically in the ocean. The pipes would use the wave-action to pump cold water from deep in the ocean to the surface. The cold water is more biologically productive and could produce more small animals like the salp (it poops carbon pellets which sink to the bottom of the ocean). The colder surface water might also reduce the number and severity of hurricanes, which gain energy from warm water. A side-effect might be the further acidification of the ocean, making it impossible for coral reefs, and the life that depends on them, to survive.
• Use the energy of five thousand, million, million hydrogen bombs to move Earth’s orbit 1.5 million km further away from the sun.
49
Lesson 3: New Technologies Do we need them to meet the climate challenge?
Copy Master - Lesson 3- Handout Position 4
Geoengineering faces challenges and protests. They include:
• Some feel the cost and technical difficulty for some of the proposals makes them impractical—at least for now.
• Tinkering with complex systems could produce unintended side-effects. Scientists cannot adequately predict the consequences of making large-scale alterations to the environment.
• These proposals do not address the underlying cause of climate change (increasing emissions of greenhouse gases). They only mask the problem.
• Ethical questions surround whether we can leave future generations a world that requires tinkering on such a large scale in an attempt to maintain livable conditions.
• Ethical questions surround whether certain groups of people can make planet- altering decisions for the rest of the world.
• Perhaps even talking about potential “quick fixes” like these will undermine the political will to work to reduce emissions.
Furthermore, geo-engineering faces push-back from the climate science community. For example, the fourth IPCC report, released in 2007, states that geo-engineering, “remain[s] largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects.” The rerport goes on to state that, “Reliable cost estimates for [geo-engineering] options have not been published.”
Advocates of geoengineering counter that it would be irresponsible to not continue research into these options, in case we fail in our efforts to slow emissions. Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen says geo-engineering “is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises.” Advocates are requesting “research funding with enough zeros on it to make a dent.”
Advocates of geo-engineering do not know how much funding would be needed, but it would be tens of billions of dollars. They argue, however, that it would be far cheaper than the alternative—the collapse of the planet’s vital life-support systems.
Sources:
Apple, M. Personal communication, March 11, 2009.
Bentley, M. "Guns and Sunshades to Rescue Climate," BBC News. March 2, 2006.
Black, R. "Lovelock Urges Ocean Climate Fix," BBC News. September 26, 2007.
Broad, W. J. "How to Cool A Planet (Maybe)," New York Times. June 27, 2006.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policy Makers, 2007. Accessed May 2014
enviroment sal 2.pdf
Carbon Tax
INTRODUCTION TO THE IDEA OF A CARBON TAX
A carbon tax is a market-based approach to lowering greenhouse gas emissions and
stabilizing global warming. Like a cap and trade system, a carbon tax introduces a cost for
carbon emissions.
A carbon tax taxes the amount of carbon emitted through burning fossil fuels. To fairly
reflect carbon content, the taxes would be based on BTU’s (British Thermal Units, a measure
of energy), instead of on something like weight or volume.
When burned, each type of fossil fuel emits a specific amount of carbon per BTU. Different
types of coal contain different amounts. Assuming the emissions are not sequestered and
instead are released to the atmosphere, all kinds of coal emit more carbon per BTU than
petroleum. Petroleum in turn emits more carbon per BTU than natural gas.
Fuels that are “cleaner” (emit less carbon per BTU) would carry less tax than more dirty
fuels.
A carbon tax would be phased in gradually. Rates would increase on a set schedule. As
prices for “dirty fuels” became more and more expensive, there would be more market
pressure to switch from coal to cleaner fossil fuels like natural gas.
Prices for energy from non-fossil fuels (like wind, solar, and biomass) would become more
competitively priced per BTU because they would not be subject to the carbon tax.
Companies that burn fossil fuels and therefore pay the carbon tax would pass on much
of their increased cost to consumers. This would encourage reduced consumption.
Potential strengths include:
It is market-based. Market-based solutions can help achieve cost-effective greenhouse
gas emission reductions.
Putting a cost on carbon emissions helps correct the market failure.
A carbon tax is more straightforward to implement and to understand than a cap and
trade scheme.
In contrast to the volatility in price that could come with a cap and trade scheme, with
a carbon tax companies know what the price of carbon will be at certain points in the
future. This allows them to plan.
A carbon tax could be “revenue neutral” and could be designed to be progressive
(benefiting lower-earning households).
Potential weaknesses include:
The term “tax” could make it politically unpopular. This makes it difficult for the U.S.
Congress to pass. Even if it were successfully written into law, there is a risk it would be
revoked or that companies would successfully lobby for exemptions.
Increased costs of fossil fuels will be passed on to consumers. Without mechanisms in
place to alleviate the burden on low-income families, the tax could cause hardship.
The lack of a “cap” reduces the certainty of lowering greenhouse gas emissions to a
specified target level.
For a helpful video about carbon taxes, watch “Comedy, Economics and
Carbon Taxes” a
Presentation by Yoram Bauman at TEDxTheEvergreenStateCollege:
http://youtu.be/tLidy1R9t9Y
POSITION #1: PRO CARBON TAX
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (Source: http://www.carbontax.org):
The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon into the atmosphere that speeds
global warming. To avoid catastrophic climate changes, leading scientists
agree we must drastically reduce emissions. Currently, however, there are few
market incentives to do this.
The emission of carbon into the atmosphere has a cost. The cost includes
climate-change-related impacts like more severe droughts, floods, storms,
disease, and rising sea levels. The polluters, however, do not currently have to
pay the cost. This means the price they charge for their products does not
reflect the products’ true cost. This is what economists call a market failure.
A carbon tax would help correct the market failure by adding a cost to carbon
emissions. A carbon tax would tax the carbon content of fuels. The tax would be
added far “upstream” in the supply chain—to extractors, processors, and
importers of fossil fuels that will be burned. They would pass their expenses down
the chain to other businesses and eventually to consumers.
The carbon tax would increase market incentives for carbon-reducing
measures. These would include increases in energy efficiency and conservation,
renewable energy, and cellulosic biofuels (as long as they are verified as low
carbon).
The taxes would be phased in slowly and would increase on a set schedule. This
set schedule would allow companies to know how much carbon would cost at
different points in the future. This would help them plan and would assure them a
certain return on investments in cleaner energy. The set schedule of increases
would also remove the volatility in prices of a cap and trade system.
A carbon tax could be collected through the tax-collecting systems already in
place. In contrast to a cap and trade system, it would not need a new market
to be established and monitored. The tax system would be much less
complicated than a cap and trade system so it could be implemented more
quickly. The simplicity of it would also reduce the likelihood of loopholes and
preferential treatment to certain companies or industries.
A carbon tax would be based on the amount of carbon a certain fossil fuel
emits per unit of energy (BTU). In general, a BTU from coal produces 30% more
carbon emissions than a BTU from oil, and 80% more than a BTU from natural gas.
Thus taxing the carbon per BTU would put a proportionately higher tax on coal
than on oil or gas. This would encourage burners of fossil fuels to switch from coal
to cleaner fuels like natural gas.
Carbon taxes are already in place in certain areas. Finland was the first to
introduce a carbon tax. Sweden and Great Britain have also enacted carbon
taxes as well as the Canadian provinces of Quebec and British Columbia and
the U.S. city of Boulder, Colorado.
Advocates of a carbon tax propose a carbon tax that would be “revenue
neutral.” Revenue neutral means that the government would not keep the
money it collects from the carbon tax. It would return the vast majority of the
money to the public. The government might keep only a small amount to invest
in programs to help provide energy efficient technology to low-income and
rural people who would be most negatively affected by rising fuel costs.
One way to make the carbon tax revenue neutral would be to divide all the tax
income equally among every citizen and return it in a monthly check. This
method would favor low-income and middle-class people. For every gallon of
fuel used by the poorest 20% of Americans, the richest 20% uses three to four
gallons. Because the dividend checks would be divided equally among all
Americans, the poorest people would receive three to four dollars back for
every dollar of tax they paid.
Another proposal to make the tax revenue neutral would be to “shift” taxes
away from existing taxes. For example federal payroll taxes or state sales taxes
might be reduced or eventually eliminated.
The amount of carbon tax money refunded to any particular individual would
be independent from the amount of fossil fuel that individual used. This would
preserve the incentive for each individual to cut back on his or her fossil fuel
usage, because regardless of how much carbon tax an individual pays, he or
she will get the same amount back.
Advocates of a carbon tax claim the taxes will have a positive effect on the
competitiveness of U.S. goods. Higher fossil fuel prices will encourage innovation
in clean, efficient technologies that are highly sought-after in world markets. A
U.S. carbon tax would create a level playing field with our long-term trading
partners in the European Union and in Japan. It would also open the door for
India and China to create a similar tax. Until India and China follow suit, the U.S.
could use “border tax adjustments” to equalize the prices of imports from
countries without a carbon tax.
Advocates of a carbon tax reject the idea that a carbon tax would damage
the U.S. economy and slow its recovery from the recession. They argue that the
real threat to the economy is catastrophic climate change. They argue that
businesses can manage increases in the cost of fuel as long as the increases are
regular and known in advance. They argue that what has traditionally upset
markets is not high energy prices, but rather price volatility (wide and
unpredictable swings in price).
A carbon tax would create a strong “market pull” towards clean energy and
energy-efficient technology. This would eventually remove or reduce the need
for the government to create subsidies for clean technologies or to earmark
spending for mass transit or biofuels or hybrid cars, etc.
Big business has tended to support cap and trade schemes over carbon taxes.
In January of 2009, however, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, the world’s
largest oil company, said Exxon could support a carbon tax. He said it was more
transparent, more fair, and more effective than a cap and trade scheme.
Advocates of a carbon tax argue that Americans’ opposition to the idea of a
“tax” could be lessened. This could happen if proposals were clearly “revenue
neutral” (meaning the government returns all the tax collected to the people
through either monthly checks or reductions in other taxes). Americans might
also reduce their resistance to a tax if they understood that it could be designed
to be progressive (benefiting lower-income people).
Advocates claim Americans are becoming willing to pay more for energy to
fight global warming. They cite polls like a 2006 New York Times/CBS poll that
found significant support for an increased gasoline tax to reduce global
warming.
Advocates claim rising fuel costs would reduce fuel consumption. They point to
the first half of 2008 when gas prices rose 24% over the previous year. U.S.
gasoline usage fell more than 3% even though economic activity rose more
than 2% during that same period.
Advocates argue that a carbon tax would be even more effective at reducing
fuel consumption than the rise in prices that happened during the first half of
2008. Over the last five or six years, gasoline prices fell about as often as they
rose. This let people think prices would eventually go back down. This makes
people less likely to make lifestyle changes. In contrast, with a carbon tax
people would know energy prices would continue to go up.
Tax advocates argue that standards by themselves are not enough. They argue
that standards are a “blunt instrument.” For example the corporate average
fuel-efficiency (CAFE) standards set for auto manufacturers do not influence
consumers’ vehicle usage. Also political arguments have continued for years
over what level the CAFE standards should set. In fact the fuel-efficiency for cars
and light trucks in U.S. has not changed much since 1987. In addition some car
manufacturers choose to pay penalties rather than comply with the CAFE
standards.
Carbon tax advocates argue mandates and subsidies are also “blunt
instruments.” An example of a mandate would be passing a law that 20% of
energy must be from renewable sources by the year 2020. A subsidy would
mean, for example, providing money for construction and operation of a wind
farm. Tax advocates argue there have been few examples of energy subsidies
or mandates resulting in substantial amounts of new energy.
Carbon tax advocates agree with other groups who suggest it would be helpful
to remove the $25 billion in tax breaks and subsidies the government currently
gives the fossil fuel industry. They argue, however, ending these giveaways
would raise prices of fossil fuel only two to three percent, not enough to reduce
consumption enough to slow global warming.
POSITION#2: ANTI-TAX
BACKGROUND INFORMATION (Source: http://www. carbontax.org):
Certain business groups worry about the impact a carbon tax would have on
them. When fuel prices rise many businesses struggle. They have to either pass
their increased costs on to customers and risk losing competitiveness or try to
absorb the costs into their bottom line. A carbon tax would further increase fuel
prices.
Rising fuel costs could impact rural businesses the hardest. They have to drive
long distances to pick up essentials. Also their customers have to drive long
distances to reach them.
Rising fuel costs would also be a hardship for truckers and shipping companies.
They would have to pass some of their costs onto consumers. That would raise
the prices of goods that are transported long distances or that contain parts or
that were shipped long distance.
Rising fuel costs would also impact the price of food. The increase in price would
come not only from the transport of food to markets, but also through the
energy used to produce the food. Corn, for example, is energy-intensive to
harvest and dry. Corn is an ingredient in a large majority of processed foods.
Furthermore animals are fed corn to fatten them before slaughter, so the cost
for meat would increase as well.
As the price of food and goods increases, the low-income and middle-class
people will be affected the most. As their budgets become tighter, they will cut
back on their spending. This will impact businesses that rely on consumer
spending.
Certain business groups worry that adding a carbon tax could also make the
goods produced in this country less competitive with goods produced in other
countries that do not have carbon taxes. In the domestic market cheap imports
from countries like India or China will out-compete American-made products. In
foreign markets, U.S. exports will have a more difficult time competing.
Some opponents of tax increases believe the government wastes and
mismanages the tax revenue it already has. Giving it more tax revenue would
just increase government waste.
Certain business groups worry the challenges presented to businesses by a
carbon tax will further damage the U.S. economy. It will make recovery from
economic recession more slow and difficult.Some environmental groups worry
that a carbon tax would be too politically unpopular to pass. This is due in part
to Americans being accustomed to cheap energy prices and to the anti-tax
movement over the past 25 years. They point to the example of President
Clinton’s proposed energy tax which was defeated.
Some environmental groups highlight the fact that most major politicians
propose a cap and trade rather than a carbon tax. This includes Obama, who is
working on a nation-wide cap and trade scheme designed to cut carbon
emissions 80% by 2050.
Some environmental groups think the support by industry and business of a cap
and trade system might make it more likely to pass than a carbon tax. Some of
the largest corporations in the U.S. support cap and trade plans. These include
ConocoPhillips, Deere, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Ford Motor Company, Johnson
& Johnson, and PepsiCo.
Some environmental groups worry that a carbon tax won’t do enough to cut
consumption. They argue that even though gas prices have risen over the past
several years, people have not significantly changed their driving behavior. They
argue increases in corporate average fuel-efficiency (CAFE) standards would
be more effective at lowering consumption.
Some environmental groups think a tax on carbon emissions is not necessary.
They agree that renewable and alternative sources of energy need to be able
to compete more effectively with fossil fuels. They argue, however, that this
could be accomplished by mandates (for example, passing a law that 20% of
energy production must be from renewables by the year 2020) or through
subsidies (for example, providing money to help with the construction of
windmills or ethanol plants).
Some groups also argue that instead of passing a carbon tax, the government
could just end subsidies on fossil fuels. Currently the fossil fuel industry receives tax
breaks and fiscal subsidies of about $25 billion a year. If the government ended
these giveaways, perhaps renewable and alternative sources of fuel could be
more economically competitive.
