The next point, I think, will be a major part in the administration’s efforts to deal with the energy agenda. Cap and Trade. I did not know much about it until I read an article about it before wriing this note (I will include a link at the end of the note so you may find more about it). The pronciple is as follows: The administration intends to reduce the CO2 emission by granting emission permits to all companies in America that emit CO2. The government will also stipulate a certain limit on how many permits will be distributed, the so-called cap. Some companies have already changed their policies regarding emission for example in California where the state administration has imposed strict laws on emitting CO2. If they have lower emissions than allowed by law, those companies can sell their permits to other companies that are not as far as the emission-sparing companies. They can exceed the cap, but only if they buy those permits. The advantage for the taxpayers are that it costs little and bring additional revenue to the government, because the government auctions those permits. It makes a lot of sense, because if emitting CO2 is pennal there is an incentive for all companis to gradually get away from it and try to find ways to reduce emission. The government can spend the money to important infrastructure, education, health care, but also energy efforts. If the government constantly readjust these emission restrictions even more revenues can be generated. With the revenue new green jobs can be greated whose expertise will be asked for by companies who are under the new system eager to reduce emission, no matter what.
Cap and Trade is therefore a reasonable solution to address our CO2 emission problems. I hope that government will stay determined in imposing it. Even the Republican platform agrees on many Obama viewpoints, however they speak out against cap and trade. The remarks of some Republican leaders also indicate the mere interest in partisanship for those. The "too much borrowing, too much spending, and too much taxing" GOP-mantra only confirms the unwillingness of Republican leaders to join a reasonable cause such as this. CNN political analyst calls that "back to basics". Obama gives a good response, pointing out that no spending will exacerbate the problem as hey remained unaddressed, and add up more to debt and budget deficit.
By investing in those projects many jobs can be created in America. If new technologies are harnessed they can be sold abroad for profit. Our dependence on foreign oil will be scaled back, and millions of Americans will have more money accessible by reduced utility bills. This is an agenda worth pursuing.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/capandtrade101.html (deals with the question what Trade and Cap is)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/ (The Administration’s official agenda)
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Energy.htm (The Republican agenda)
http://www.gop.gov/press-release/09/03/10/pence-presidents-budget-spends (U.S. Congressman Mike Pence’s, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, remarks on 9/3/09)
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/29/rallying.gop/index.html (Bill Schneider on Republican strategies)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/03/obama-text-news.html (Obama press conference 3/25/09)
Chip Reid: (…)And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on healthcare, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history. (…)
Obama: (…) none of us know exactly what’s going to happen six or eight or 10 years from now. Here’s what I do know: If we don’t tackle energy, if we don’t improve our education system, if we don’t drive down the costs of healthcare, if we’re not making serious investments in science and technology and our infrastructure, then we won’t grow 2.6 percent, we won’t grow 2.2 percent. We won’t grow. (…)