Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES Act), H.R. 2454 by a vote of 219 to 212. Anyone following the path of climate related legislation knows that this has been a clear uphill battle. The House vote of 219-212 indicates just how divided we are on this matter. The battle to follow in the Senate will prove equally hard fought; the outcome at this point is any one's guess. As this legislation debate on climate matters continues, a few questions come to mind and I present a couple here. I have some of my own ideas but welcome feedback from others as well.
First, do we really need legislation in the first place? One could argue that we've already reached a considerable tipping point. Not a day goes by that I don't see some sort of green related messaging. On the international level, many countries around the world are well down the slope of imposing caps on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and working with a variety of trading programs aimed at mitigating those emissions. Companies, large and small alike, across all verticals are pursing various sustainability programs and their numbers are increasing. The number of such firms publishing their sustainability reports to network based organizations such as Global Reporting Initiative are also increasing.
Based on these observations one might well conclude that we will do right by the environment because we're already doing so, others around the world will expect us to do so, and we're simply just "getting it" as something that needs to get done. I for one anticipate that these forces will continue to grow and accelerate, with or without legislation.
On the other hand, I believe there are strong reasons supporting the need for legislation to be properly crafted and implemented. The low hanging fruit and perhaps some of it just beyond will indeed be pursued without it. But the bigger challenges, particularly those pertaining to sectors of our economy that represent the most detrimental to our environment in terms of negative impacts, need mechanisms that will ease the path toward improved sustainability. Such mechanisms would need to include trading capabilities that could be obtained by large emitters to drive down their carbon footprints along with other efforts they may pursue. Similarly, incentives will need to be implemented to ensure desired progress can be made without crippling economic performance. Beyond these supporting arguments, legislation will likely get us to our desired objectives faster than we will otherwise as necessity will drive innovation and investment that accelerates the progress made.
Assuming this conclusion is accurate and legislation is considered to be a necessity, one needs to drill into the other side of the coin and ask: at what cost? I find this to be an interesting question. Clearly, the concerted debates surrounding this matter and the close votes suggest that there may indeed be a steep cost to be paid. Those opposed to climate legislation, at least in the form it is currently taking, point to tremendous job losses to other parts of the world as well as large per capita costs required to implement proposed legislation. They also question the actual impact such legislation will have on the planet's overall health.
I've seen cost estimates ranging from a few hundred dollars per person, per year, to those exceeding $4,000 per person. I've not as yet seen any specific numbers on job losses predicted by those opposed to this legislation. And yes, we are certainly not alone in this challenge; we may make a dent in the bigger problem but it won't be "solved" unless there is a concerted effort by all the major polluters, including China.
To better understand this raging debate it would be helpful indeed to see some hard numbers along with their underlying assumptions and calculations. It's simple to pluck numbers out of thin air and use them to argue a point; it's another matter to provide substantiation that at least affords us the opportunity to have a more meaningful discussion around the issues and options at hand. I welcome input along those lines so that we can have that more meaningful discussion. In the meantime, change out those light bulbs, turn off your PCs when not in use, and definitely continue sorting out those recyclables!
No comments:
Post a Comment