Sticky Hunter Paper Edited A 'Lil Bit

Imagine studying for a science test using an outdated textbook with old theories and information that has been proven false. No matter how hard you studied, it wouldn’t help you on the test. It might actually make your score worse!
The United States is facing a major science test of its own, one that it cannot afford to fail. It’s a test on how the country will tackle the looming pollution problem. A lot of different ideas on how to slow pollution and its effects on our environment have been brought up, but will they really work?
Cap and trade is one such proposed solution to the pollution problem. The idea is that the government sets a limit, or cap, on how much emissions are allowed to be released every year. Organizations are then given permits by the government allowing them to pollute. Over time, the cap is reset lower forcing organizations to pollute less. If organizations are able to reduce their emissions, they can trade their permits to other organizations for money. Cap and trade has support because it is viewed as a way to cut down on pollution and allow organizations to profit from being environmentally friendly.
Despite the good intentions of cap and trade, it’s actually been proven to increase emissions! Just like cramming for a science test with an outdated textbook, no matter how hard we try, it’s just not going to work.
Cap and trade was first implemented on a large scale in Europe in 2005. After three years, emissions actually rose by almost two percent. During that same time, emission in the United States rose, but it was small – a fraction of a percent. If emission in Europe rose more than double than they did in the United States with legislation trying to combat it, why would we want to try it out?
To understand why cap and trade doesn’t work, one must understand why it backfired in Europe. A major reason it didn’t work was the misuses and abuses in the system.
Billionaire and investor George Soros said that the cap and trade system “can be gamed; that’s why financial types like me like it – because there are financial opportunities”.
The initial step of setting the cap is problematic because organizations have billions of dollars at stake. Energy is a big money business and organizations will spend millions of dollars lobbying and persuading government officials to ensure the cap as well as the terms of the legislation benefit them. This is what happened in Europe.
Some companies that have become notorious for exploiting financial opportunities such as Enron and Goldman Sachs, were early supporters of cap and trade. Goldman Sachs in particular saw cap and trade as an enormous opportunity to profit from. President Obama conservatively estimates the legislation to create a $646 billion market for carbon credits that will only go up in price as they become more and more of a commodity, a commodity that organizations like Goldman Sachs would love to get their hands on.
After the cap was set too high in Europe, the market was awash in permits. The organizations that had historically polluted the most received the most permits; they were basically rewarded for polluting. Many organizations even got free permits because they were based on predictions of future emissions levels.
To make matters worse, organizations could look for the financial opportunities and loopholes to make more money while failing to reduce emissions. That happened in Malaysia where the Sinar Mas corporation cut down forests. Forests are brakes on climate change, taking in carbon dioxide. The company then took the razed land and planted palm oil trees. Although the trees didn’t make up for the ecological damage the company caused, they earned permits and was able to pollute more than the cap should have let them.
Organizations could also exaggerate how much carbon they emitted or were planning to emit. By embellishing the numbers, they are able to claim they are lowering their emissions without actually doing anything and, in the process, earn more permits.
Some might argue that the problems encountered in Europe don’t necessarily have to happen in the United States. That is true, but it disregards the fact that there aren’t many examples of legislation being passed that manages to plug all the loopholes; it just doesn’t happen.
Even in the best of circumstances, it’s likely that cap and trade would do little to combat pollution. Many scientists say that cap and trade might inch the global climate down a fraction of a degree over several decades. Climate scientist Chip Knappenberger says that cap and trade would reduce the earth's future temperature by no more than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. Considering the massive economic damage that many predict would befall the United States for adopting the legislation, is it worth less than a degree change in the global temperature over the course of a century? That fails to take into account developing nations which are expected to contribute extraordinarily to global emissions levels. China, for example, uses coal for 70 percent of its energy needs, needs that will only continue to grow as it becomes more industrialized. Even if the United States managed to find a way to make cap and trade work, the miniscule gains would be overshadowed by emissions from other nations.
Cap and trade is plagued with too many problems. The Washington Post said, “Cap-and-trade regimes have advantages…but they are complex and vulnerable to lobbying and special pleading, and they do not guarantee success.”
A solution to our global pollution problem must be found, but cap and trade is not the way. No matter how hard we try, making cap and trade work is like studying from an outdated textbook. The United States needs to look at new ideas and plans and find a better solution. The solution is finding alternate sources of energy. Although supporters of cap and trade will argue that the pressure of a lowering cap will force organizations to seek alternative sources of energy, it's unlikely that a centrally planned, government run scenario will do that. It will take a free market and technological innovation to reach that goal.