We'll start with the benefits. The bill has a forty-year plan to reduce emissions of toxic pollutants by up to 83%, the bill encourages high emissions-producing companies to lower emissions in order to trade and make profit for being more environmentally-friendly, and to be frank, it's the best attempt yet made to modify our increasingly dangerous patterns of polluting our earthly home.
Now the cons. Honestly, I cannot come up with point of this bill that negatively affects the environment, but a whole slew that affect the economy. Still living in the wake of an economic crisis, now being called "a recession," these economic effects will take a heavy toll. With the laws put into place, either energy and fuel prices will skyrocket because let's face it, they are what truly pollute the environment the most, or, the companies within our country will result to outsourcing, or having all the "messy" work done outside of the United States so that companies can stay within or below their alloted pollutant emissions. Honestly, I think it will be a combination of both, but I want to primarily focus on outsourcing.
My enthymeme so far is this. What are the consequences of the Cap-and-Trade bill on the unemployment rate in the United States?
Claim: The Cap-and-Trade bill will create more unemployment within the United States.
Reason: Because the Cap-and-Trade bill will cause more outsourcing
Assumption: Whatever causes outsourcing also causes less jobs (or more unemployment) within the United States.
The way I see it, because huge companies that depend so heavily upon fossil fuels and the like will be restricted as to how much they are able to use/ burn off (even our cars will have a cap to how much fuel we can use), many companies will look to other countries, say China or India for example, where there is no cap to emissions and where things can be manufactured at at lower rate, thus helping them keep their sales up without sacrificing too much. While this is great news to the poorer countries who will benefit greatly from this, this won't fare too well with our own American citizens. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in March of 2010, the unemployment rate in the United States is at a shocking 10.2%. Right now in the government, what we truly need are bills passed that will help our citizens get jobs, take care of bare necessities, and to strengthen our country from within, before we can tackle problems like this.
I'm thinking that my counter-argument will be that people are hoping that other countries will follow suit and pass bills of the same caliber, thus essentially nixing the possibility of outsourcing, but I'm not sure. Can you think of other strong counter-arguments?
It would be fantastic if other countries would enact similar programs but past experience has shown that this is kind of unlikely. Environmental programs of this size are seen as politically and economically risky. Because many of these programs have never been introduced before, the effects are unknown. In the UK, for example, a cap and trade model was used to help companies practice their financial planning with the added expenses of cap and trade in mind. The effects of the programs are so unknown that people are unsure about what exactly to do.
ReplyDeleteChina actually is moving towards a national cap and trade program and this could help your argument if you decide to go with it anyway. See http://carbontradingdaily.com/carbon/china-moving-toward-national-carbon-cap-and-trade/ for information on China's program.
A counter argument you could use is that although the US might see a little more outsourcing initially it will not have a long run affect as more and more counties create their own programs. The system in Europe had 15 countries in 2005 but now includes 28 countries. Success in one area can spread to other areas and that could negate the possibility of outsourcing to bypass emission regulations.
Like I mentioned when we spoke, there might be something in the bill that discourages outsourcing, and if there isn't maybe you can suggest we add it, arguing that the base idea is good and all that's needed is a quick amendment to limit outsourcing. This would definitely be complicate (you can't just ban outsourcing), but it seems like it could be a viable argument. See what you think of that as you do your research.
ReplyDelete