While reading an article from the Chicago Tribune entitled, Economic free fall may bog down efforts to control global warming gases, top environmental aim, it caused me to consider whether the environmentally-friendly movement is idealistic or pragmatic given the current condition of the economy. The article discusses the proposed idea of legislation, the cap-and-trade bill, that would cap the greenhouse gases that cause global warming through government regulated trading. This seemed feasible several months ago, but “the focus on stabilizing the economy probably will make it more difficult to pass a law to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.” Passing the law is not at the top of the list of priorities for legislators because the “remedy for slowing global warming, a mechanism know as cap-and-trade, could put further stress on a teetering economy.” So is it better to take the idealistic stance to believe that someday our issues of global warming in the environment could be fixed or even solved? Or it better to side with the pragmatists: we have an economic crisis at our hands, consequently there are more important things to be worrying about than fixing the environment? The government seems to be taking the pragmatic approach currently, given that “even supporters of federal regulation of greenhouse gases acknowledge that something has to give given the state of the economy.” But this issue has not been forgotten entirely, just put on hold for the time being; “Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, and both presidential candidates, continue to rank tackling global warming as a chief goal next year.” Furthermore, other Democrats are taking a very idealistic approach, seeing the cap-and trade-bill as an “engine for economic growth” because “the government revenues it would generate from selling permits.” It will be interesting to see how this one plays out, and if and when the cap-and-trade bill gets passed.
2 comments:
Rachel,
Good point. I find it particularly disconcerning that the United States is one of the only nations who have not signed the Kototo Protocol, an agreement which requires countries to limit their greenhouse gas emmisions. Bush claims signing it will "hurt our economy", however, if we are ever going to solve the global warming crisis we need to get our act together. Obama appears to have his act together when it comes to environmental policies! There is still hope.
I think this is a very good point. I believe (not saying it’s the right decision or anything) that the government will address the problems our economy is facing first, though. The economic problems are seen and criticized every day, while greenhouse gases and global warming are more of a long term issue. I agree, though, that it will be interesting to see if the government is concerned more about the long or short term issue.
Post a Comment