Cap and Trade Scheme

 

 

On Friday, the US House of Representatives approved the “Cap and Trade” carbon emissions trading scheme. It didn’t pass with flying colors. Actually it passed through a very narrow hallway; It was 219 votes for and 214 against. But let’s not focus on numbers. Lets focus on the fact it DID pass and it is a start to something that could grow into greater collaboration for our environment. As Obama put it, “An extraordinary first step!”

I believe a big shout out is well deserved for the intensive lobbying, to our lawmakers, to president Obama, Hillary Clinton, former vice president Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. You guys are doing right by finally putting our environment as a priority.

   

Technorati Tags: Obama,President Obama,Law,Environmenal Laws,Cap and Trade,2009,Obama's Presidency

So what happens now? Now the legislation must be passed by the Senate. Where to be perfectly honest, the chance of it passing aren’t looking all that bright. (But let’s stay positive. With some hard work from all of us, it just might turn around). Once the senate passes it, it can be signed into law by President Obama. So please everyone, encourage those you know about the importance of a great start for our environment. It matters and we need to get the word out.

Okay, okay, so how can you get excited about this if you aren’t even sure what the “Cap and Trade,” is? And how can you pass the word around? You probably can’t. First you need to know what the Cap and Trade is.

So here it is, a quick and simple explanation of the “Cap and Trade:”

In a nutshell, It means we make carbon dioxide pollution a tradable commodity. Carbon trading represents an attempt to fashion a “free market” solution to the global warming crisis.

Is that it? YES.

You want some details? I listed them below:

The cap has a goal. That goal is to cut our countries emissions by 17% by the year 2020. And then cut it up to 83% by 2050. In the “Cap and Trade” scheme, those that are major corporate polluters will be allocated a share of the total of carbon credits, or allowances. If they lower their emissions than they can take those carbon credits they saved due to lowering their emissions and sell them as surplus carbon credits for a profit to those who need them.

This scheme is not an Obama first. President Regan believed in them. So did the Clinton administration. It is big in Europe. Unfortunately, carbon trading has not yet met the levels of emission reduction that scientists say are necessary to truly make a difference. The keyword there is YET. It doesn’t mean it cant’ be done, and why not start with us? We are an amazing country with grand possibilities.

What is the government doing to try and get this “Cap and Trade” scheme to pass the senate? Simple, senior Democrats have added concessions, incentives and special provisions to accommodate many businesses. According to one report, due to this, 880 business and interest groups registered to lobby on this legislation. Let’s hope many more jump on the bandwagon.

You know who else is looking forward to this “Cap and Trade?” Wall street. They want this bad because in Europe, it has developed into a multi-billion-dollar commodity. So much so that entire divisions of major banks and hedge funds in London, Paris and Frankfurt are involved in the investment of these pollution credits. Cha Ching!

Now on to the part we, the average every day folks may not be looking forward to in regards to the “Cap and Trade” scheme. You knew this was coming right? I mean what pro doesn’t have a con or con have a pro? According to the Congressional Budget Office research, the average US household will pay an additional $175 a year in energy costs by 2020 with the “Cap and Trade” scheme.

RELAX. Don’t nod your head no, don’t begin saying how the government wants all your money or how they are stealing form you or how now you don’t want this “Cap and Trade.” Remember WE got ourselves here by being irresponsible with our Earth. Cliché? Maybe so, but so very true. If we don’t do something now about these issues, the impact will likely be FAR WORSE. And this is as good a place to start as any.

Under the “Cap and Trade,” the price of carbon is UNCAPPED and dictated by the market. Ordinary people’s ability to afford to fuel their car and heat their homes is therefore at the mercy of the activities of the carbon market speculators.

This is new so it still has a lot of developing to go through. A lot of picking, dissecting, adding and removing to be done to it before it’s perfected. As a matter a fact, it most likely will never be perfect. After all nothing is perfect. But an improvement on it would be great.

You may agree with the Cap and Trade, or you may not. I myself applaud this start on our behalf and look forward to seeing where the “Cap and Trade” will take us.

New, Highly Toxic Pesticide Is Greenhouse Gas 4,780 Times More Potent Than CO2

From: Center for Biological Diversity
Published July 13, 2009 10:27 ऍम

San Francisco- Public health and environmental advocates Friday asked the U।S। Environmental Protection Agency to deny a request from Dow AgroSciences for a permit allowing it to release large amounts of sulfuryl fluoride onto farm fields in four states। The chemical is a toxic pesticide whose global warming effects are thousands of times stronger than carbon dioxide

"The hazards of using sulfuryl fluoride in agriculture have not been evaluated. It is also 4,780 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide," said Dr. Brian Hill, a staff scientist at the Pesticide Action Network. "Either one of those facts makes permitting these tests a major mistake."

Dow AgroSciences proposes using sulfuryl fluoride to sterilize soil in farm fields. The permit would allow the release of 32,435 pounds of sulfuryl fluoride on 65 acres of test plots in Florida, Georgia, Texas, and California. Releasing just 10 percent of that amount into the air would be equivalent to releasing 15.5 million pounds of carbon dioxide. "A car that gets 30 miles per gallon would have to be driven 23 million miles — the distance of a trip circling the world over 930 times — to cause that much global warming," said Hill.

"Dow would like to sell this toxic chemical to farmers across the country — and will apply to do so if this test goes well," said Craig Segall of the Sierra Club. "We don’t need more global warming pollution, so we’re asking EPA to nip this problem in the bud."

"Other offices within EPA are currently working diligently to control climate change, which the EPA recognizes as the most pressing environmental challenge of our times," said Justin Augustine of the Center for Biological Diversity. "It makes no sense for EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs to work at cross purposes with the rest of the agency by allowing the use of such a harmful substance."

Not only is sulfuryl fluoride a potent greenhouse gas, its high toxicity likewise poses significant human health and ecological risks. Thus far, EPA has not carefully reviewed the health risks for those exposed to the chemical or considered the impacts of the releases on endangered species and other wildlife. The groups’ letter asks EPA to take a hard look at these questions, including by consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The letter was signed by Alaska Community Action on Toxics, the Center for Environmental Health, the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, the Pesticide Action Network, and the Sierra Club.

Contact Info: Brian R Hill, Ph.D.
Staff Scientist
Pesticide Action Network North America
49 Powell Street # 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
(510)289-4329

Craig Segall
Environmental Law Fellow
Sierra Club Environmental Law Program
85 Second St., 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 977-5610

Justin Augustine
Staff Attorney
Center for Biological Diversity
351 California Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 436-9682 x 302
(415) 436-9683
jaugustine@biologicaldiversity.org

Website : Center for Biological दिवेर्सिटी