Global warming is something that has been happening for centuries caused by natural gasses such as carbon dioxide and sulfur given off by volcanoes, and methane gas given off by animals. Although these gases have been slightly depleting the o-zone layer but it was not until industrialization that the o-zone layer began rapidly depleting, and not until the last decade that the topic of global warming became an important social and political issue. I recently read an article written by Paul Krugman, who won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in economic science, which explained what global warming was and explored a few possible solutions to the problem. Krugman’s article was titled Building a Green Economy, and brought light to the dilemma of decreasing depletion of the o-zone layer or affecting the economy in a negative way. Krugman began his article explaining that global warming is a debated topic but it is obvious that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing the Earth’s temperature. Although some people claim global warming is not happening scientific facts prove it is. According to NASA 2009 was tied for the warmest year on record with 2005 (1).
Following the explanation that global warming is a real problem Krugman went on to explain that the basic economic problem with decreasing greenhouse emissions is many solutions will hurt the economy rather than benefit it. Furthermore this situation creates a serious problem considering the global economy facing one of the biggest downturns in history. Louis Uchitellle reported, in a column in the New York Times, that as of December 2009 the unemployment rate hit 7.2 reaching a sixteen year high and is proposed to reach 8.5 by July 2010 (1). Consequently our nation’s leaders are faced with the daunting task of finding ways to lower the Earth’s temperature by improving air quality without hurting an already vulnerable economy that is over a billion dollars in debt and has a large and rising unemployment rate. Throughout the rest of Krugman’s article he visits some possible solutions that have been attempted or are in conversation.
On the topic of solutions the first one Krugman looks at is what he called the “cap and trade policy (2). The cap and trade policy is basically a system of making big businesses that emit substantial amounts of greenhouse gasses pay for the air they pollute. The basic idea of the cap and trade policy that Krugman explains puts prices on licenses that allow companies to emit a certain amount of a specific greenhouse gas. Krugman states that this policy will give companies incentives to reduce pollution in that the less the companies pollute the air the more money they will save (2). Although the cap and trade bill seems like a logical way to slow down the destruction of the o-zone layer, according to Dan Foster, the topic will not be brought up in the next meeting of the Senate because an immigration reform bill has been placed in front of it on the national agenda (1). In addition to the cap and trade solution not being addressed immediately the morality of the solution is questioned because in essence we are allowing companies that can pay enough money to destroy the o-zone layer, ultimately destroying the planet.
Undoubtedly the cap and trade solution along with other solutions will be attempted by the United States, however it may not matter what we do if the rest of the world does not jump on board as well. Krugman reports that the United States is second to China in greenhouse emissions and many developing countries are also contributing in a major way to the problem of global warming (6). Furthermore convincing other countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions seems to be an even more overwhelming task than convincing our legislator’s to. China’s economy is more dependent on releasing greenhouse gas than we are and developing countries have watched us pollute the air for years and will most likely oppose us telling them to stop. Krugman then goes on to look at the problem hypothetically and proposes the question; would it be better to worsen an already troubled economy by decreasing air pollution or to continue what we are doing and get the economy back on its feet before addressing the problem? Krugman states that within the next century the overall temperature will rise by nine degrees Fahrenheit which would continue to rise causing weather to change and sea level to rise throughout the world, and if nothing is done there may be no need for an economy (7).
In response to Krugman’s article I enjoyed it and felt I learned valuable information about problem of global warming. Krugman was very familiar with both economics and the environment making him a credible source to write such an article. Certainly I think the idea Krugman touches on known as the cap and trade solution is a step in the right direction but should not be a long term solution to the problem. I personally believe more money should be placed in research and development of renewable energy sources, such as solar power, than us rely on companies not polluting as much because they are charged for it. Furthermore I agree with Krugman that the United States may not be the main source of the problem and it will be very difficult to convince other nations to change their ways. I see problems arising with convincing other nations to change because in essence we are asking China to do something we are not sure we can handle economically that will hurt them more, as well as telling countries that are just getting started to not do what we have done for many years. In addition to agreeing with Krugman on the fact it may be hard to convince other nations to adopt a more environmental friendly policy, I agree that action must be taken to stop destruction of the o-zone layer. The way I look at the problem it does not matter how bad the economy is damaged by preserving the o-zone layer, if we do not stop polluting so much the Earth will become uninhabitable making the economy the least of our problems.
--Evan Meyers
No comments:
Post a Comment