Blog 15
Group Number with Names
Paragraph 1:
Describe the underlying framework of your topic as if the audience you're addressing has never heard of it before
Paragraph 2:
Relate your topic with the United States specifically. What are some of the challenges associated with this topic or how does your topic benefit our understanding of global warming?
Group 1:
ReplyDeleteA cap and trade system is defined as an emissions trading program regulated by a government designed to cap the total level of specific chemical by-products resulting from private business activity. The purpose of cap and trade is to create a market price for emissions and therefore create incentive for companies to build eco-friendly infrastructure. Our topic is a global cap and trade system, not specific to any one nation, but rather encompassing all recognized nations of the world. In order for a global cap and trade system to exist, all nations of the world would have to recognize global warming as both a threat to life on earth and as a product of human waste. Only in this situation would an agreement such as this succeed.
In terms of the United States, we are one of the only industrialized nations on Earth that does not universally recognize the existence of human caused global warming. That being said, our government would never pass its own cap and trade system, much less join an international system where the cap space would be regulated by someone other than the US. The US also has incredible economic and political influence over other nations, and we are one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases, so if we didn’t join the global agreement, many would follow suit.
Group Grade: A
DeleteCost-benefit analysis is a concept from economics that explores a decision based upon the potential costs and benefits which it would entail should it be implemented.
ReplyDeleteCost-benefit analysis in the context of the United States' environmental policy would likely include both the economic and political costs as well as the environmental and health benefits which good policy would provide. For this particular topic, it is difficult to compare the costs and benefits due to the fact that the costs will largely occur in the short term, while the benefits will likely be manifest themselves in the longer term. This would cause a significant conflict between those who would suffer most from the costs and those who would benefit more from the pros of the legislation. While it is important to acknowledge the long term benefits of such a legislation, the short term costs would have to be limited enough to get big businesses who would suffer from the legislation to tolerate it.
Group 5
Group Grade: A
DeleteCarbon offsetting is the act of businesses or individuals purchasing carbon credits to compensate for their emissions, meet their carbon reduction goals, and support the movement to a green economy. An example of this would be paying a landowner in the amazon to plant, or save trees in an area that is being heavily deforested. There are three main aspects of a carbon offset, the time that the offset starts, the source of the offset, and the procedures that are used to register the offset. The most common projects are investing in renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric, solar, and wind power.
ReplyDeleteBusinesses in the United States, as well as certain individuals use these to compensate for their environmental impact to meet increasing stockholder pressure, differentiate from competitors, and show their leadership in moving to an overall greener economy. This includes carbon credits which can be sold, and traded on the open market to incentivize corporations to be green. The argument against these in the united states is that it allows for corporations to still emit carbon, and not actually have to make any real reductions, resulting in a zero-net gain in carbon dioxide reduction. These companies also have individuals who go abroad to buy, sell, and trade carbon credits, to further allow them to produce carbon in the United States. Many the companies who are getting involved in carbon offsetting are smaller firms, and not the larger ones who are producing the most carbon as there is no direct legislation to force them to do this, instead mostly optional participation in these programs.
http://www.carbonneutral.com/resource-hub/carbon-offsetting-explained
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/should-you-buy-carbon-offsets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset
Group 6
Group Grade: A
DeleteGroup 3:
ReplyDeleteCarbon footprint is best described as the impact we have on the environment. It is the total amount of carbon or greenhouse gases caused by individuals or business corporations. Common activities are using electricity, excessive trash, burning of coal, individual transports, etc. It is difficult to measure the total carbon footprint due to the effect of natural causes within the environment, because it offsets the total results. However, it is understood that the individual processes have caused a major increase in greenhouse emissions because carbon footprint is 60% of humanities overall ecological footprint. This provides intel that it is rapidly growing and our goal is to reduce the amount of carbon footprint in order to live within the means of our planet.
The topic of carbon footprint further explains how greenhouse gases are absorbing heat reflected off the surface of the earth. This supports the theory of global warming within the United States. As more fossil fuels are burnt and other greenhouse gases are released the atmosphere is able to absorb more radiation, warming the surface of the Earth. Some challenges that appear within the US specifically are that the economy is based upon mechanisms that produce carbon, such as deforestation for building houses or burning coal for electricity and the US also has five times the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that anywhere in the atmosphere, which causes a depletion in resources. Therefore, the larger the carbon footprint is the more greenhouse gases increase, spurring further climate change.
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/carbon_footprint/
http://www.gaiam.com/discover/305/article/carbon-footprint-impact-climate-change/
Group Grade: A
DeleteThe atmosphere is the collection of gases surrounding the earth, composed of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .9% argon, and .03% carbon dioxide, along with water vapor, pollen, dust particles, etc.
ReplyDeleteThere is a limited amount of carbon that the atmosphere can hold, although scientists do not have a precise number of what this maximum amount is. Carbon entering the atmosphere at higher than natural rates causes the earth to warm, thus increasing climate change.The atmosphere is a limited resource and it's hard to hold countries accountable for the carbon they emit into it because it is a shared resource.
In America, there is a tax on airplanes coming in and out of the country to punish air travel, which is a high emitter of carbon into the atmosphere. Because carbon does not stay within a country's airspace once it is released, and it harms the entire globe equally, regardless of what country emitted it, work on climate change needs to be emissions-focused when it comes to identifying and holding countries accountable for the amount of carbon they contribute to the atmosphere. Once the carbon is emitted, it does not just harm that specific country but rather the world at large. Thus policies like the airplane tax and EPA regulations on how much carbon companies can produce are the only ways to specifically limit America's contribution to climate change.
Group 2:
ReplyDeleteDiscounting/discount rate in relation to climate change is about evaluating the cost now to the benefits in the distant future. There needs to be drastic efforts and funds placed on climate change now in order for there to be a benefit for generations to come. This is difficult for a lot of people because there is no immediate return on their investment and they will not live to see the outcome of their efforts.
Like in the United States many people acknowledge climate change as a big issue but since they aren't being confronted with the side effects of climate change nor will they see the drastic effects in their lifetime it doesn't seem prevalent to them. People need to acknowledge that their efforts now are for the greater good of humanity and the planet in the future. There are two different discount rates, "delayer" and "alarmist" where the delayer emphasizes a higher discount rate while the alarmist sees the need for immediate action and near-zero discount rate. The main area where these two disagree is how much we should value damages to future people.