First Steps on Global Warming
Congressman
Tom Petri
Tom Petri
May 15, 2006
Scientists all over the world are sounding the alarm about global warming. They say that, at least partly due to human activities, the world's atmospheric temperature is rising, and that as a result the polar ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising and will ultimately flood coastal cities, hurricanes and tornados are intensifying, weather patterns are changing in ways that will endanger both species and agriculture production, and tropical pests are advancing into new areas.
Some insist that the evidence for global warming is being exaggerated, but I think we know enough to want to take prudent steps to limit the release of the "greenhouse gases" such as carbon dioxide and methane which we vent as industrial pollution, through car emissions and other activities. Like the glass in a greenhouse, these gases let sunlight in, but don't let the resulting heat escape back into space. Much of this is good and essential, of course - but too much is dangerous.
Environmentalists have been calling attention to this issue for decades, but so far the response has been very limited. In 1997, many of the world's major countries negotiated the Kyoto Protocol, which was designed to impose pollution restraints on industrialized countries.
The Clinton Administration endorsed the treaty but never sent it to the Senate for ratification because it knew that it would never pass. Indeed, also in 1997, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that the United States should not sign any agreement like the Kyoto Protocol, which failed to bind developing as well as developed economies. The vote was 95 to 0.
The fact is, among policy makers, fear of global warming is trumped by the fear of economic disruption which could be caused by new anti-pollution mandates.
While some think we need to take drastic action, I think we need to start with a program which can actually win congressional approval because it's better to start in the right direction than simply talk about it. That's why I've joined with Rep. Tom Udall of New Mexico to propose a plan which will get us started, but which provides enough flexibility so that businesses will be able to comply without going broke.
Under our proposal, three years following the enactment of the legislation we would begin charging the industries responsible for emissions a maximum of $25 per ton of the carbon pollution which they emit. We expect gradually to increase this fee, first to slow the growth of greenhouse gases and then to actually reduce them. Businesses will be able to purchase the emissions allocations they need, but always the pressure will be to make it more cost-effective for them to find ways to reduce pollution.
The bill will also provide for advanced energy research, help for workers displaced as a result of job losses due to the impact of the law, help for low-income people in need of heating assistance, and deficit reduction.
Also, we protect U.S. competitiveness by tying future increases in the price of the emissions allowances to the emissions-reducing actions of developing countries. We have to be sure that other countries participate in the solution instead of using our efforts to undercut our prices.
Some will think our bill does too little while others will think it does too much. But I think H.R. 5049, the Keep America Competitive Global Warming Act, is the difference between getting started versus simply continuing to talk.
Some insist that the evidence for global warming is being exaggerated, but I think we know enough to want to take prudent steps to limit the release of the "greenhouse gases" such as carbon dioxide and methane which we vent as industrial pollution, through car emissions and other activities. Like the glass in a greenhouse, these gases let sunlight in, but don't let the resulting heat escape back into space. Much of this is good and essential, of course - but too much is dangerous.
Environmentalists have been calling attention to this issue for decades, but so far the response has been very limited. In 1997, many of the world's major countries negotiated the Kyoto Protocol, which was designed to impose pollution restraints on industrialized countries.
The Clinton Administration endorsed the treaty but never sent it to the Senate for ratification because it knew that it would never pass. Indeed, also in 1997, the Senate passed a resolution declaring that the United States should not sign any agreement like the Kyoto Protocol, which failed to bind developing as well as developed economies. The vote was 95 to 0.
The fact is, among policy makers, fear of global warming is trumped by the fear of economic disruption which could be caused by new anti-pollution mandates.
While some think we need to take drastic action, I think we need to start with a program which can actually win congressional approval because it's better to start in the right direction than simply talk about it. That's why I've joined with Rep. Tom Udall of New Mexico to propose a plan which will get us started, but which provides enough flexibility so that businesses will be able to comply without going broke.
Under our proposal, three years following the enactment of the legislation we would begin charging the industries responsible for emissions a maximum of $25 per ton of the carbon pollution which they emit. We expect gradually to increase this fee, first to slow the growth of greenhouse gases and then to actually reduce them. Businesses will be able to purchase the emissions allocations they need, but always the pressure will be to make it more cost-effective for them to find ways to reduce pollution.
The bill will also provide for advanced energy research, help for workers displaced as a result of job losses due to the impact of the law, help for low-income people in need of heating assistance, and deficit reduction.
Also, we protect U.S. competitiveness by tying future increases in the price of the emissions allowances to the emissions-reducing actions of developing countries. We have to be sure that other countries participate in the solution instead of using our efforts to undercut our prices.
Some will think our bill does too little while others will think it does too much. But I think H.R. 5049, the Keep America Competitive Global Warming Act, is the difference between getting started versus simply continuing to talk.
Print
Email
