On Monday, the New York Times published an article addressing the Environmental Protection Agency and the agency’s persistence for the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from all sources. The article highlights the implications of regulating commerce-related production, although the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that regulation will drive jobs overseas and further hurt the already struggling economy.
In September, the EPA proposed a “tailoring rule,” which “limits regulation of climate-altering gases to large stationary sources such as coal-burning power plants and cements kilns that produce 25,000 or more tons a year of carbon emissions.” In English? Regulation has the potential to reduce production and the big-shots are worried about losing workers and money overseas.
Obama has put the environment on the backburner, and he had the Middle East and his Healthcare Reform to tackle in his first year. However, I feel that the environment is going to have a much bigger impact on our future than we would feel comfortable admitting. Those damn trees can’t even move. Why are we worried about them going anywhere? Oh… wait. Because we are destroying them at an alarming rate.
Are we willing to regulate and restrict our economy to save a few trees? Not at the moment, apparently.
When Obama was asked what he would do for the environment during his campaign for the 2008 Presidential election, he seemed optimistic.
“It is critical that we understand this is not just a challenge, it’s an opportunity,” he said, “because if we create a new energy economy, we can create five million new jobs, easily…We can do it, but we’re going to have to make an investment.”
If taking this opportunity to make our country “green” would create jobs and improve our economy, why hasn’t the environment been more at the forefront of the issues? Last I checked, the economy is still doing poorly.
What’s that you say? What about the Copenhagen talks? Many of the participating scientists have stated that the numbers are off and the ideas and proposed plans would be easily manipulated by government officials. Also, the monitoring equipment for the proposed checks in other countries is not up to date, leading to inefficiency.
I’m not sure what the solution is to the “environment problem,” but I am sure that if we don’t take some drastic steps to change how rapidly we are destroying our planet, it will probably err more on the side of bad than good.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Environment.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-10-copenhagen_N.htm
I agree. I find it so interesting that we are one of the highest consuming countries in the world, yet we lag so far behind in our actions to get this under control. If we want other countries to take action, we need to lead the way.