Economy advantage
Download 0.93 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Subsidies would reduce emissions and encourage industries to adopt more low-emission technologies
- Current subsidy programs need to be refinanced
- Text: The United States Federal Government should implement tech standards as a means of climate adaptation.
- States CP – Cap-and-Trade Specific
- Republican Congressmen don’t want the cap and trade
- States can adopt a climate adaptation plan.
- Climate adaption is preformed by the states
- States can implement cap-and-trade independent of the USFG – RGGI proves
- RGGI produced $1.6 billion in NPV, spurred the local economies, and dropped consumers’ electric bill
- States solve best – too much governmental skepticism
Subsidies CPSubsidies are incentives that the government issues that would encourage industries to use more environmentally-friendly technologies. Text: The United States Federal Government should issue subsidies as a means of climate adaptation.SolvencySubsidies would reduce emissions and encourage industries to adopt more low-emission technologiesGAO, 09 (United States Government Accountability Office; the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of the US Congress; “Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies Can Help Control Emissions”; June 2009; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09554.pdf) Subsidies are another market-based instrument that could, in principle, provide incentives for sources to reduce their emissions. For example, experts we met with said that the government could use subsidies to encourage industry and others to adopt existing low-emissions technologies and improvements, such as winglets. In addition, some experts told us that NextGen-related technologies are candidates for subsidies because of the high costs of the technologies and the benefits that they will provide to the national airspace system. According to IPCC, subsidies can encourage the diffusion of new low-emissions technologies and can effectively reduce emissions. For example, as newer, more fuel-efficient engines are developed and become commercially available, subsidies or tax credits could lower their relative costs and encourage airlines to purchase them. Current subsidy programs need to be refinancedGAO, 09 (United States Government Accountability Office; the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of the US Congress; “Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies Can Help Control Emissions”; June 2009; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09554.pdf) Although subsidies are similar to taxes, economic research indicates that some subsidy programs can be economically inefficient, and need to be financed (for example, using current tax revenue or by raising taxes). For example, although some subsidy programs could lead to emissions reductions from individual sources, they may also result in an overall increase by encouraging some firms to remain in business longer than they would have under other policies such as an emissions tax. Tech Standards CPTech standards would mean that the government or whoever would tell airlines which technologies they can and cannot use Text: The United States Federal Government should implement tech standards as a means of climate adaptation.SolvencyStandards which mandate or promote certain technologies reduces cost of compliance and avoids aviation safety implicationsGAO, 09 (United States Government Accountability Office; the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of the US Congress; “Aviation and Climate Change: Aircraft Emissions Expected to Grow, but Technological and Operational Improvements and Government Policies Can Help Control Emissions”; June 2009; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09554.pdf) Mandating the use of certain technologies or placing emissions limits on aircraft and aircraft engines are also potential options for governments to address aircraft emissions. Standards include both technology standards, which mandate a specific control technology such as a particular fuel-efficient engine, and performance standards, which may require polluters to meet an emissions standard using any available method. The flexibility in the performance standards reduces the cost of compliance compared with technology-based standards and, according to DOT, avoids potential aviation safety implications that may occur from forcing a specific technology across a wide range of operations and conditions. States CP – Cap-and-Trade SpecificText: The fifty states of the United States should each implement a cap-and-trade program as a means of climate adaptation.Won’t pass in FGCongress doesn’t want to pass cap-and-tradeCart 11 (Julie Cart, on the environmental staff for theLos Angeles Times, “California becomes first state to adopt cap-and-trade program,” October 21, 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/21/local/la-me-cap-trade-20111021) The California Air Resources Board on Thursday unanimously adopted the nation's first state-administered cap-and-trade regulations, a landmark set of air pollution controls to address climate change and help the state achieve its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.¶ The complex market system for the first time puts a price on heat-trapping pollution by allowing California's dirtiest industries to trade carbon credits. The rules have been years in the making, overcoming legal challenges and an aggressive oil industry-sponsored ballot initiative.¶ The air board met in Sacramento for more than eight hours in a packed hearing room. Board members listened to sometimes scathing comments from union workers fearful of losing their jobs and a parade of industry representatives who likewise characterized the regulations as anti-business. Other speakers called the proposal historic and groundbreaking.¶ Late in the day, as the eight board members voted to approve the regulations, to scattered applause, Chairman Mary Nichols looked up and said, "We've done something important."¶ "Cap-and-trade is a new tool that for the first time allows us to reward companies for doing the right thing," she added.¶ Cap-and-trade is the centerpiece of AB 32, California's historic climate change law that mandates a reduction in carbon pollution to 1990 levels by 2020. Beginning in 2013 the state's largest carbon emitters will be required to meet the caps or buy credits if they cannot.¶ A second phase of compliance begins in 2015 and is expected to include 85% of California's emissions sources.¶ Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a strong supporter of the original legislation, applauded the vote in a statement released Thursday evening.¶ "Today's adoption of a cap-and-trade program is a major milestone for California's continued leadership on reducing the world's greenhouse gases. As I said both when we signed the legislation in 2006, and when we fought to protect it last year when Texas oil companies attempted to overturn it with Proposition 23, the most critical phase in the fight against climate change is diligently, aggressively, and correctly implementing this law."¶ The vote was closely watched by other states and, if the program is deemed successful, it will likely serve as a model for future markets. The U.S. Congress has rejected a similar national program.¶ "If California gets it right, others will see it's possible to regulate greenhouse gas emissions while protecting its economy and while fostering a new green economy and industry," said Gary Gero, president of the L.A.-based Climate Action Reserve, a nonprofit that runs North America's largest carbon offset registry. "People watch what California does and do emulate it. Future cap-and-trade programs are going to pick up a lot of the design features we are implementing here. You'll see regional programs develop. They will put pressure on the federal government. It will send out ripples around the country." Republican Congressmen don’t want the cap and tradeBuntin 10 (John Buntin; staff writer for Governing Magazines, covers health care, public safety, and urban affairs; “A Cap-and-Trade Program That Works;” December, 2010; http://www.governing.com/topics/energy-env/cap-trade-program-that-works.html) But something strange happened on the way to a national cap-and-trade system: At the very moment when a state-created regional program has demonstrated that the method can work, policymakers in Washington are turning against it. What started as a conservative idea has become an expletive for many in the Republican Party. According to an analysis conducted by the liberal Center for American Progress, 86 of the 100 freshmen Republicans elected to Congress in November are opposed to any climate change legislation that would increase government revenue. At a post-election press conference, even President Barack Obama conceded that cap and trade was effectively dead. That leaves the states participating in RGGI -- as well as the states participating in other regional climate change initiatives, such as the Western Climate Initiative and the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord -- facing a difficult question: Should states build what the federal government will not? States solveStates can adopt a climate adaptation plan.Meyer et al. 09, (Michael Frederick R. Dickerson Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, PhD Michael Flood Senior Planner at Parsons Brinckerhoff ¶ Chris Dorney Transportation/Land Use Planner at Parsons Brinckerhoff ¶ Ken Leonard Principal of Cambridge Systematics, ¶ Robert Hyman Associate at Cambride Systematics ¶ Joel Smith expert on climate change policy, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 and 2007 assessment report; the latter shared the Noble Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Vice-President of Stratus Consulting, Boulder, CO. “Climate Change and the Highway System: Impacts and Adaptation Approaches”. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 5/6/2009 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP20-83%2805%29_Task2-3SynthesisReport.pdf) Twelve states have developed or are developing some kind of climate adaptation plan, and in ¶ another eight states an adaptation plan was recommended in the state Climate Action Plan (CAP) ¶ (see Figure 4-1). In most cases, these adaptation plans are an outgrowth of climate action planning ¶ that is primarily focused on mitigation (reducing emissions). ¶ Typically, these climate action plans are led by the governor’s office, or by the state Department of ¶ Natural Resources. In many states, the Governor issued an Executive Order that established a State ¶ Commission or Sub-Cabinet to develop a State Climate Change Plan. These states formed multistakeholder working groups to broadly address climate change impacts to the human and natural ¶ environments, with transportation as one of many components being addressed by these working ¶ groups. Climate adaption is preformed by the statesCEMA and CNRA April 2012 [http://resources.ca.gov/climate_adaptation/docs/APG_-_PUBLIC_DRAFT_4.9.12_small.pdf California Emergency management agency and California natural Recources Agency April 2012] State actions will play an important role in strengthening California’s resilience to projected climate impacts and associated secondary consequences. However, many of the development characteristics most important for reducing climate risks, such as land use, are locally controlled. Local and regional jurisdictions are critical collaborators in preparing for unavoidable climate impacts. The degree to which communities are at risk to secondary climate impacts is influenced by local conditions including culture and community values, economic base, ecological setting, and local resources. As a result, there is no single “right” adaptation strategy. The best strategies for adapting to climate change must vary with local needs and context. States can implement cap-and-trade independent of the USFG – RGGI provesHibbard et al, 11 (Paul J. Hibbard, Vice President of the Analysis Group, an Economic, Financial, and Strategy Consultation group, MS in energy and resources from University of California at Berkeley; Susan F. Tierney, Managing Principal at Analysis Group, PhD and MA in regional planning and public policy from Cornell University; Andrea M. Okie, Manager at Analysis Group, Master of Public Policy from University of California at Berkeley; Pavel G. Darling, Associate at Analysis Group; “The Economic Impacts of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative on Ten Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States;” November 15, 2011 http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedFiles/Publishing/Articles/Economic_Impact_RGGI_Report.pdf) In 2009, ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states began the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ¶ (known as RGGI), the country’s first market-based program to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide ¶ (CO2) from power plants. Understanding the program’s performance and outcomes is important ¶ given that RGGI states account for one-sixth of the population in the US and one-fifth of the nation’s ¶ gross domestic product. Through the development of the RGGI program, these states have gained ¶ first-mover policy experience and have collaborated to merge a common policy into well-functioning ¶ electricity markets. Insights and observations gleaned from an analysis of the program’s performance ¶ will be valuable in evaluating past policy decisions and future policy recommendations. RGGI produced $1.6 billion in NPV, spurred the local economies, and dropped consumers’ electric billHibbard et al, 11 (Paul J. Hibbard, Vice President of the Analysis Group, an Economic, Financial, and Strategy Consultation group, MS in energy and resources from University of California at Berkeley; Susan F. Tierney, Managing Principal at Analysis Group, PhD and MA in regional planning and public policy from Cornell University; Andrea M. Okie, Manager at Analysis Group, Master of Public Policy from University of California at Berkeley; Pavel G. Darling, Associate at Analysis Group; “The Economic Impacts of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative on Ten Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States;” November 15, 2011 http://www.analysisgroup.com/uploadedFiles/Publishing/Articles/Economic_Impact_RGGI_Report.pdf) What happened to the dollars? First, RGGI produced $1.6 billion in net present value (NPV) ¶ economic value added to the ten-state region.¶ 4¶ The region’s economy – and each state’s as well – ¶ benefits from the RGGI program expenditures. When spread across the region’s population, these ¶ economic impacts amount to nearly $33 per capita in the region.¶ 5¶ Figure ES2 shows the net economic value broken out by the macroeconomic effects of the impacts of RGGI on consumers and power ¶ plant owners, as well as effects that flow from direct spending of RGGI allowance revenues This economic benefit reflects the complex ways that RGGI dollars interact with local economies: the ¶ states’ use of RGGI auction proceeds on programs leads to more purchases of goods and services in ¶ the economy (e.g., engineering services for energy audits, more sales of energy efficiency equipment, ¶ labor for installing solar panels, dollars spent to train those installers and educators, and so forth). ¶ Together, these dollar flows have direct and indirect multiplier effects locally and regionally. ¶ RGGI has also produced changes in consumers’ overall expenditures on electricity. Although CO2¶ allowances tend to increase electricity prices in the near term, there is also a lowering of prices over ¶ time because the states invested a substantial amount of the allowance proceeds on energy efficiency ¶ programs that reduce electricity consumption.¶ 6¶ After the early impacts of small electricity price increases, consumers gain because their overall electricity bills go down as a result of this investment ¶ in energy efficiency. All told, electricity consumers overall – households, businesses, government ¶ users, and others – enjoy a net gain of nearly $1.1 billion, as their overall electric bills drop over ¶ time.¶ 7¶ This reflects average savings of $25 for residential consumers, $181 for commercial ¶ consumers, and $2,493 for industrial consumers over the study period. Consumers of natural gas and ¶ heating oil saved another $174 million. Figure ES3 shows the net bill reductions to consumers. States solve best – too much governmental skepticismBuntin 10 (John Buntin; staff writer for Governing Magazines, covers health care, public safety, and urban affairs; “A Cap-and-Trade Program That Works;” December, 2010; http://www.governing.com/topics/energy-env/cap-trade-program-that-works.html) Skepticism of this sort had stalled cap-and-trade legislation in the U.S. Senate even before last month’s election. After November’s vote, most observers believe that the prospective of legislative action on cap and trade in the 112th Congress is now nil. There is, however, likely to be a push by the new House Republican majority to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from moving ahead with plans to regulate carbon dioxide as a harmful pollutant. That leaves state efforts such as RGGI standing alone as virtually the sole governmental attempt to address climate change. It also raises an uncomfortable question: When a global solution is needed, what can a handful of states really do?¶ Conceptually the case for pessimism seems strong. But in a state like Massachusetts, it’s hard not to be impressed by the enthusiasm for collaboration and experimentation evident in many cities and towns. In addition to its new windows, Athol recently became one of the commonwealth’s 35 designated “green communities” by enacting stringent new zoning commissions and committing to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over five years. Thanks to RGGI, stimulus money and ratepayer changes, Massachusetts is also expanding the reach of its energy efficiency programs from between 10,000 and 15,000 homes a year to between 50,000 and 100,000 homes a year.¶ “Cap and trade is only one area of collaboration” among the RGGI states, says Burt. Thirty states now have climate action plans, and what those “are really doing is a portfolio approach,” says Burt. Indeed, the RGGI states, along with Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., are now looking at transportation sector initiatives, such as California-style fuel efficiency and auto emissions standards, and promoting smart growth.¶ RGGI has also fostered striking collaboration within states, between departments of environmental protection and energy resources, which have historically been at odds. In Massachusetts, it was the Department of Energy Resources that administered Athol’s grant. That department has also worked with Burt’s agency to create such innovative tools as MassEnergyInsight, which allows cities and towns to go online and document exactly how much energy local government is consuming. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.93 Mb. Share with your friends:
|