Comments on: Debate Debrief: Climate Change http://www.oleville.com/2009/11/debate-debrief-%e2%80%93-climate-change/ St. Olaf Student Government Association (SGA) Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:28:17 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: John Tyler http://www.oleville.com/2009/11/debate-debrief-%e2%80%93-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-166 John Tyler Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:43:59 +0000 http://www.oleville.com/?p=489#comment-166 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!!!!!! 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!!!!!!

]]> By: Geoff http://www.oleville.com/2009/11/debate-debrief-%e2%80%93-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-141 Geoff Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:29:19 +0000 http://www.oleville.com/?p=489#comment-141 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. 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.

]]>