The most recent PAC dinner debate occurred Monday, November 9, 2009 between Liberals Kate Tecku and Kate Bjorkland and Conservatives Carrie Zimmerman, and John Riley. The debate focused on “cap and trade” legislation; both its’ merits and disadvantages. All debaters showcased a wealth of knowledge regarding climate change, and conveyed this information to the audience with vivacity and passion.
The liberal argument focused on actively addressing climate change by capping carbon emissions and infusing money from carbon permits into sustainable technology. The liberals emphasized that the cost of inaction far outweighed the cost of addressing the issue head on. What is your opinion regarding the economic impact of the “cap and trade” legislation? Furthermore, they stressed that the proposed legislation was economically viable, that the growing of the “green” industry would result in a net increase of 1.7 million jobs. Ultimately, the liberals stated that delay was no longer an option.
On the conservative side, Zimmerman and Riley argued that the “cap and trade” legislation did not solve global warming, would hurt they economy, and could incite a trade war. They stated the limited affect that the lower emissions from the proposed legislation would have on overall global warming, and argued that the economic risks outweighed the potential benefits of this type of political action. Furthermore, they discussed the possibility of a trade war with nations such as China and India if the proposed legislation was enacted. Do you think this type of conflict is a realistic possibility? Ultimately, the conservatives argued that “cap and trade” legislation was not the answer to the climate change woes, and would in fact lead to greater economic distress and potential political problems.
At the conclusion of debating, both sides answered audience questions with poise and intellect. Questions covered an array of topics including: the market response to green technology, the possibility of trade wars, and the effect of the previous administration on Republican climate change ideology.
Now the stage is yours, the debate is far from finished…give us your thoughts by posting a comment below!
Thursday, November 12, 2009 | Political Awareness Committee
Both sides were well informed, which ultimately served the debate. Unfortunately, they (especially the conservative side) strayed away from the topic at times. For instance, their concerns about the costs placed on consumers has more to do with the RES (Renewable Energy Standard) than to do with the Cap and Trade portion of the bill. Furthermore, I think that this was also representative of how this debate often becomes more a battle over who has better statistics than over the principles of the bill. Jason Teiken’s assertion that this bill is an investment is spot on; it is an investment in our energy, our business, and our future.
In my opinion, this bill serves as a statement to the world that the United States does in fact take climate change seriously, and is taking significant steps forward to change our consumptive practices. We are too often defined by legislative inaction, and in fact counteraction when it comes to environmental agreements. China and India, two of the largest polluters in the world, will be more willing to adopt climate change legislation if they know that the United States has already taken action.
Finally, my Environmental Economics class has examined the Cap and Trade program, and have discovered that it is an economically viable option for our nation, and is better than the alternatives we available. Currently there is not enough incentive for firms to change their energy habits,and this option, especially instead of a pollution fee system, will not break the bank. The free marked solution is clearly not solving anything (at least currently), and Kate was right to say that any inaction now will only hurt us in the future.
I really don’t think that spending billions of dollars and hampering economic activity should be encouraged at this time, just to show the world that we “care.” We need to get over our image and start acting rationally. How can we expect countries like China and India to adhere to our wishes? They value growth over environmental welfare, and for a good reason. Environmental welfare is arbitrary and it CANNOT be proved that us humans are at fault for our changing climate. The earth is extremely old, and all statistical research on climate change takes only small fractions of time, not large enough to capture the whole picture.
Its the same thing at Olaf. We see “sustainability” everywhere and all it does is decrease the quality of food in our caf and makes some of us feel better about ourselves. We have a windmill! Yay! Good for us! Oh shoot, we got a C- on our sustainability report….but at least we try!!!!!!