Should A Global Climate Agreement Hold The US To A Higher Environmental Standard
February 29th, 2008 -- Posted in Environment | No Comments »Yes, the US should be held to a higher environmental standard than the rest of the world. We have benefited from a higher economic growth driven by the consumption of a large part of the world from fossil fuels, a large part of the world pollution. We are technically equipped to lead to a higher environmental standard. At present, but it would be a big challenge for the US to assume this leadership role. We will have to wait for a new administration that, hopefully, would like to take this role for us.
The Bush administration has to reject actions aimed at reducing global warming. It has refused to require cuts in heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution significantly increase fuel economy requirements, or to hold companies accountable for the improvement of energy efficiency using wind, solar energy and other renewable energy sources. In his final FY2009 budget request by President Bush accurately reflected the low priority his administration for helping the environment.
Even President Bush stripped critical resources Americas protect communities and natural resources, and instead rewarded dirty industries. All this followed his State of the Union Address touting his commitment to clean, renewable energy sources and reducing dependency on petroleum. A quote from President Bush's speech on energy was “The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change. And the best way to achieve those objectives is for America to continue on the road to the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology.
Despite the president of the more aggressive statements on combating climate change, its budget request would reduce funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy, such as wind, solar energy, etc. The president gets a lot of that Decrease by drastic funding of $ 280 million to $ 60 million for low-income households to “weatherize” their houses with new windows, better insulation and other efforts.
As a frame of reference, the Green budget, which has been Used in Congress's budget deliberations, recommends Weatherization a FY2009 budget of $ 300 million dollars. On average, the Department of Energy said that weatherization reduces heating bills by 31 percent and total energy costs of $ 358 per year. The total request for 2009 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a major Department of Energy Agency, is $ 1255 billion, a 27 percent decrease from the 2008 level of $ 1722 billion. The Green Budget recommendation of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is $ 81 billion dollars. We would anticipate the major differences between the President of the requested budget and the proposed budget Green, but one would suspect that the Green Budget closer to our needs, if we want it a leading role in environmental standards.
Climate change is the most important issue in Congress and must be a major showdown on the proposed budget energy. Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate are drawing up large bills to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by “cap and trade” systems. These bills would billions of dollars to stimulate the development of cleaner energy sources. The major contenders for the next presidential elections, the Democratic senators Clinton and Obama and Republican Senator McCain, also support the “cap and trade” systems. In addition, Senator Clinton wants to tighten fuel economy standards Congress has more than last year, so that an average vehicle is 55 miles per gallon in 2030. Senator McCain sees nuclear energy as a large part of the pollution solution.
Aggressive environment must show leadership in the forthcoming presidential elections. However, the strong and coordinated efforts of the future president and the Congress of the United States moving to the forefront of environmental standards. There is a great watershed between the mainstream technologies that modern energy industry and the new “clean” technologies that offer an alternative, low carbon path to the future. This watershed includes cost, technology, duration and size of the existing energy infrastructure.
It is not enough for our new president to lead us into a new role of energy leadership. With today the conditions known, there are two major obstacles preventing foreseeable future have to be overcome for a leading role. The first hurdle is the slowdown of the American economy. We suspect that the economy will slow down and possibly go into a recession in late 2008 and 2009. These poor economy could slow down investment in renewable energy sources and postponement of the momentum that the United States currently has in the definition of renewable energy.
The second hurdle is Congress' not to renew energy tax incentive credits that expire at the end of 2008. A new economic study by Navigant Consulting finds that more than 116000 jobs and nearly US $ 19 billion in US investments can be lost in a year as energy tax credits are not renewed by the Congress.
It is a full agenda for a new chairman just to the position of the United States for their account and reduce their own pollution. For a leadership role would be a great achievement and I hope that we witness.
References:
1) The Green Budget, http://www.environmentalleague. Org/images/GreenBudgetFY2007.pdf
2) FY2009 Proposed Federal Budget, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/browse.html
3) The 2008 State Address of the Union, http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2008/index.html
4) New Study: Delays in the expansion of renewable energy Incentives Risks Loss of more than 116000 American Jobs, http:/ / Www.seia.org / solarnews.php? id = 160