Links to Krugman, Paulson and IETA articles and questions for 9/10

1. The Coming Climate Crash: Lessons for Climate Change, Henry Paulson

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-for-climate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html?ref=opinion

2.  The Big Green Test: Conservatives and Climate Change, Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/23/opinion/paul-krugman-conservatives-and-climate-change.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C{%221%22%3A%22RI%3A8%22}

3.Why Emissions Trading is More Effective than a Carbon Tax, International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)

http://www.ieta.org/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D207:why-emissions-trading-is-more-effective-than-a-carbon-tax%26catid%3D54:3-minute-briefing%26Itemid%3D135

1) What remedy does Henry Paulson view as the most effective means to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels (i.e. sources such as coal fired power plants)? Why does he believe this to be the most effective remedy?

2) Paulson also argues that attempting to do more than this now would not be advisable. What reasons does he make for taking this position? Do you agree/disagree?

3) In his response to Paulson, Paul Krugman argues that “A carbon tax may be the best thing we could do, but we won’t actually do it”. Explain why he make this argument.

4) Krugman then argues that there are several other alternatives that can more easily be achieved if there is a willingness to do them. What are some of these alternatives and what benefit does he see in these alternatives?

5) Finally, the International Emissions Trading Association argues that the most effective means of addressing the current carbon emissions crisis is the adoption of emissions trading. What is emissions trading?

6) Which – if any – of these three proposals do you see as offering the most effective policy and why?

17 thoughts on “Links to Krugman, Paulson and IETA articles and questions for 9/10

  1. William Camapno

    Henry Paulson’s carbon credit is an interesting take on tackling climate change. He belies that by charging Co2 polluters, a tax, for what they dump into the atmosphere that would persuade them to move toward polices and technologies that would be better for the environment, in order to avoid paying the tax.

    Paulson also argues that attempting to do more than this now would not be advisable, for two reasons. One he feels that the unpredictable nature of the crisis means that broad actions can have unforeseen consequences. For example forest fire prevention, something everyone at the time was for, disrupted the normal healthy natural and normal burn cycle the forest had and replaced it with hotter, longer and more damaging fires that had an overall negative impact on the forest. Paulson’s second reason for a light touch, is that he believes people will balk at government intervention, and at this stage it is governments that are the groups that can impact climate change the most.

    The problem with the carbon tax is that, as Paul Krugman says, we will not do it. First proposed in 1973 by David Gordon Wilson [ http://bit.ly/1uGqwMZ ] and we still have not implemented it and if we haven’t done it in forty years we are not going to do it anytime soon. Krugman instead champions the second best solutions like homes selling excess solar energy back to the electric company.

    Finally according to the International emissions trading origination, argues that the most effective means of addressing the current crisis is imposing a carbon cap. This cap sets a global cap on carbon emissions though the use of a limited number of permits. Corporations can or other groups can buy or sell permits as needed. The limited number of permits get reduced over time and this will bring down the over all Co2 emissions.

    As for which policy is best? Why be limited by one solution, place a cap and then tax any additional credits that need to be bought while also have energy providers buy back excess solar energy generated buy homes, and as always, solar roadways!disabledupes{416bc472204cc0e6b9d22056701c061a}disabledupes

    Reply
    1. Sean MacDonald Post author

      William – Good point. Why be limited to just one policy? There are many other policies that have yet to be seriously considered.
      In Krugman’s argument, he sees Congressional political obstacles to implementing Paulson’s carbon tax.

      Reply
  2. Lin Lin

    1) What remedy does Henry Paulson view as the most effective means to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels (i.e. sources such as coal fired power plants)? Why does he believe this to be the most effective remedy?
    Henry Paulson believe that carbon tax can be imposed in order to slow down the carbon emissions. The reasons he said that because his conservative neoclassical theory. He believes that the market is self-correcting and will reach its own equilibrium by itself, impose the price in carbon emission will force the consumers make their rational decisions. The consumers eventually will chose less cost way, which neoclassical theory assume that is less carbon emission way. The increasing price of carbon emission will force market to come out less carbon emission technology and provide incentives for the green technology growth. The carbon tax also will change behavior of both individuals and business because rational decision making consumers will not willing to pay for more for carbon emission. Higher the carbon energy price by the carbon tax will low down the cost of clean energy relatively. It would create the job opportunities in green energy. It would strengthen our national security if we become a less carbon dependent country. He use climates bubble to describe the current climate situation, it is resemble with the financial bubble in 2008. He feel it is safe to impose the carbon tax before the bad condition really happen.
    2) Paulson also argues that attempting to do more than this now would not be advisable. What reasons does he make for taking this position? Do you agree/disagree?

    Paulson argues that the carbon tax is a short term policy and it is a tendency for future environmental policy. As a conservative neoclassicist, he think too much government intervention into the market will distort the market mechanism rather than helping market growth. He use example of previous finance policy that incentivize us to borrow too much money financing home and result to finance crash in 2008. He also argue that our previous energy policy lead our nation into a carbon dependent country and overuse of the carbon-fuel. We will not be able to change the long-consequence of those flaw policy, we only can adapt to it. It lead us less flexibility to environmental policy. He point out that the oversizing the risk have potential to be tremendously damaging. He think we still uncertain about many of the climate change effect, act too much of it will not be a good choice for our current situation.
    I don’t agree what Paulson’s opinion. I don’t think our climate change situation can be resemble with the economic situation in 2008. Economic inflation or crash is something we can repair or recovery to the ideal point. But environment, once we damage it, it can never been fully recovered to the original point, such as ozone layer, we observed the ozone hole in south pole is getting larger over the years, we only can put effort to reduce its damage rate, but we can never expect to repair Ozone layer to the point of 1979. Environment issue is more serious and urgent than any other issues. Many factors take years to be showed up and be visible by human, if we do not act and have strong policy to protect our environment, how can we imagine what the world like in our grandchildren’ generation.

    3) In his response to Paulson, Paul Krugman argues that “A carbon tax may be the best thing we could do, but we won’t actually do it”. Explain why he make this argument.
    Paul Krugman makes his argument base on his second-best thing theory. He concludes all Paulson’s argument are political view. He doubts about Panlson’s carbon tax as well as Republican’s environmental policy. He thinks if the Republican can adapt the carbon tax, then they should be able to adapt other second best policy. It is hard to achieve agreement in the congress if the policy was imposed by other parties. The climate denier caucus in 113th congress makes the carbon tax is unachievable approach. He makes the comparison between health reform and the climate change policy. The climate change policy would be similar with health reform which have the hard time back and forth in the congress discussion.
    4) Krugman then argues that there are several other alternatives that can more easily be achieved if there is a willingness to do them. What are some of these alternatives and what benefit does he see in these alternatives?
    There are three alternative that Krugman propose which are fuel efficiency standard and net metering mandates requiring that utilities buy back the electricity generated by homeowners’ solar panels; government loan guarantees supporting for clean energy; creating cap and trade system. Those alternatives are more active way to control the carbon emission, it directly involve the consumer participate in the carbon emission reduction; while the carbon tax is more passive way of control, that doesn’t require directly participant of the consumers, tax just change the consumption market and doesn’t directly involve to change the consumers’ decisions making. Krugman’s alternative have more control and more influence of the consumers’ decision making.
    5) Finally, the International Emissions Trading Association argues that the most effective means of addressing the current carbon emissions crisis is the adoption of emissions trading. What is emissions trading?
    The emission trading is market based approach to control carbon emission. The government sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that may be emitted, a pollutant either buy permit for the carbon emission or get credit for the carbon reduction. This tool allows government to punish the high pollute company by imposing a cap on the amount of carbon they can emit, and also prize the company who put effort on clean energy by rewarding them credit. This tool is proofed successful in aid rain reduction in U.S.
    6) Which – if any – of these three proposals do you see as offering the most effective policy and why?
    I do not agree neither one of them, because they all fail to directly encourage the low-carbon energy growth. No matter carbon tax or emissions trading, they all allow people to pay for the emission they exceed. That means if you can afford to pay the price of carbon emission and willing to pay for it, that you have privilege to pollute the earth. If the price of carbon emission is less than the green energy, that many rational decision making consumers will continue to pollute and transfer their extra cost of production to their products consumers. If you have money you have right to emit more carbon, then you have privilege to destroy the world that many poor people living. Put the price on the carbon emission only good when the carbon emission price is enough high that many people can’t afford to pay for that, and it is only good when the price of low-carbon energy is enough low that many people will not think about high-carbon energy. Imposing price on the carbon emission is a short term policy or policy combine with other innovation policy. We need to look for policy that reduce carbon emission and invent the new energy that we can depend on in the future.

    Reply
    1. josapha

      1. Henry Paulson’s view as the most effective means to reduce carbon emissions is for the government to issue a carbon tax that will create incentives to develop new and cleaner energy technologies.
      2. Paulson argues that attempting would not be advisable because he feels as if without the unity or the help of other countries,whatever the United States would try will lead to failure and be a complete waste of time. I do agree with Paulson in that aspect as far we as a people/nation need to work together in order for us to stop what is affecting us and the environment. Although that may be the case, I believe that regardless of what may occur or actions taken, it’ll only slow down the process which will ultimately lead to destruction.
      3. Krugman argues that ” a carbon tax maybe the best thing we could do, but we won’t do it” because he sees and understands that the ideas given to reduce carbon emission in the environment is great but at the same time isn’t doable in the time being. He feels that the “second-best answers” is the most realistic thing to do
      4. Some alternatives the Krugman proposes is government support for clean energy via subsidies and loan guarantees and fuel efficient standards or net metering. He feels that although these aren’t the best suggestions, it’ll work for now. High emissions tax is great and awesome if it were possible.
      5. Emissions trading, essentially, is the idea of limiting emissions which will, in turn, focus on the cause of climate change with minimal cost

      Reply
  3. Jia Min (Carmen)

    1) Henry Paulson’s view to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels is by putting a price on emission. The reason that he believes this to be the most effective remedy because America and China are the biggest countries in the world and once these two countries starts to pay attention to this problem; it will motivate all the countries to develop technology to address climate change.
    2) Paulson argues that this would not be advisable because United States cannot solve this problem alone, and this is a global issue which means it needs all the countries come together and to stop it. Many people always give themselves an excuses to ignore the truth, such as the science is unsettled or the costly of solve the problem is too expensive. And I totally agree with Paulson’s point of view, because people are notice this problem from the media and they choose to ignore it. Also, I think it’s because the government doesn’t do enough to motivate their citizen on how to stop climate change.
    3) Paul Krugman makes his argues toward to Paulson’ view because putting a price on emission is a good idea but there are other ideas are better that which is it’s called the theory of the second-best. People will more willing to accept second-best answer if they can afford Paulson’s view because it doesn’t cost that much and it can have the same affect.
    4) Krugman stated three alternatives that can more easily be achieved if there is a willingness to do them. The first one is the utilities buy back the electricity generated by homeowner’s solar panels. Second one is government support for clean energy on subsidies and loan guarantees. Lastly, there is an agency called Environmental Protection Agency, which is imposing emission limits and encourage people to create cap-and –trade systems to address the greenhouse gas emissions.
    5) Cap-and-trade system means to controls the amount of greenhouse gases that a state produces a year and trade is companies will pay the amount of carbon that they produce, which mean the less they produce carbon the less they pay for it.
    6) I think the most effective policy will be the cap and trade system, because to set a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases a state or factory can produce is the fastest way to improve the environment. If people don’t follow the rules then they have to pay for it. So government doesn’t have to take money from innocent people and this policy will make more people to be aware of this global problem.

    Reply
  4. Christina B

    What remedy does Henry Paulson view as the most effective means to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels (i.e. sources such as coal fired power plants)? Why does he believe this to be the most effective remedy?

    Henry Paulson’s remedy to solving the climate bubble occurring in our environment is to create a national policy addressing climate change; such as taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Paulson believes putting a price on carbon would adjust the behavior of individuals and businesses. Paulson believes that taxing carbon emissions is the most effective remedy because it would lead to the development of new technologies, create new jobs (new energy products) and lower the cost of clean energy.

    2) Paulson also argues that attempting to do more than this now would not be advisable. What reasons does he make for taking this position? Do you agree/disagree?

    Paulson argues that attempting to do more than this now is not advisable because we don’t have a lot of information on what exactly is going to occur with our environment. We do know that the burning of fossil fuels is warming the plant, with the risks of rising sea levels. Paulson states that waiting for more information before acting is a drastic risk. He argues that we will never have enough information but we do have enough to act. Paulson uses the financial crisis of 2008 as a reason to support his position. I agree with Paulson’s remedy because taxing carbon emissions would lead to the development of new technologies (new energy) and would also reduce to usage of emissions. The best solution would be to remove the use of fossil fuels however that isn’t the case, so reducing it is our option. The tax money collected would go towards helping climate related disasters.

    In his response to Paulson, Paul Krugman argues that “A carbon tax may be the best thing we could do, but we won’t actually do it”. Explain why he make this argument.

    Paul Krugman argues that “a tax may be the best thing we could do, but we won’t actually do it” because we have yet to do so. He argues that there are second best alternatives that we are already doing or soon might do. Overall the best and right policy would be to eliminate the distortion however in this case we can’t.

    Krugman then argues that there are several other alternatives that can more easily be achieved if there is a willingness to do them. What are some of these alternatives and what benefit does he see in these alternatives?

    One of Krugman alternatives is fuel efficiency standards (net metering); which reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Another alternative is to address the climate change like a health reform.

    Finally, the International Emissions Trading Association argues that the most effective means of addressing the current carbon emissions crisis is the adoption of emissions trading. What is emissions trading?

    Emission trading or cap and trade is an economic incentive for reducing emissions of pollutants. A limit or cap of pollutants emitted is set by government officials. The transfer of permits (carbon credits) is referred as trade. Firms that require more emissions are buyers and sellers are rewarded for the reduction usage of emissions.

    Which – if any – of these three proposals do you see as offering the most effective policy and why?

    The policy that offers the most effectiveness is the cap and trade policy. The cap and trade policy is practiced in the US, EU, New Zealand and Australia. It has been proven to be effective for the acid rain program in the US.

    Reply
  5. Daniel Aleksandrov

    1. The best remedy against the pollution of the environment related to the utilization of fossil fuels is a carbon tax, meaning that any emission of carbon dioxide by fossil fuel plants must be taxed. In his article, first, he explains why the high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are dangerous and how they cause the global warming. After that, he analyzes the cost effectiveness of his proposal by speaking about fortification and protection of big coastal cities from the potential threats of floods and hurricanes related to the global warming. In Paulson’s opinion, a carbon tax is the most effective remedy to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels that lead to the global warming because it would be much cheaper to sign it into the law and implement the related regulations than constantly fortifying the coastal areas and losing huge financial resources on the consequences of hurricanes. In addition, it would require much less time to sign the regulation into the law than testing new Green technologies that are not definite to make any effect. According to the author, we do not have much time available and we have act as fast as possible.
    2. In my opinion, Paulson says that because he sees the carbon tax method as the starting point for the major change leading to the cleaner environment. He says that as the consequence of implementing the taxation, more jobs would be created, the price of the green technologies and energy would go down, and the dependency on fuels from other countries would go down as well. He argues that rather than working on these three issues separately, we better implement the taxation method that would act as “the domino effect” leading to solving of the before mentioned issues.
    3. Paul Krugman argues against the point of Mr. Paulson because he truly thinks that there is no way the government will implement the taxation regulation in near future. In my opinion, he thinks that way because there are already “a number of second-best things” available, such as encouraging utilization of green/solar technologies and the regulations of power plants emissions. These regulations are already working well towards solving the issue of carbon dioxide pollution, and if we adopt the taxation method, then we there would be a threat of foreclosure of the mentioned programs. Mr. Krugman believes that Mr. Paulson, as a businessman, chases the idea of favoring the business groups and need “to appease special interests” instead of truly caring about the environment. In my opinion, it is another clash between two representatives of two opposing political parties.
    4. The encouragement of green/solar technologies through loan and investment programs and Environmental Protection Agency’s proposals of reduction emissions from fossil power plants are the key arguments that Mr. Krugman speaks about. The benefit of the first alternative, even though being “inefficient” compared to the taxation technique, is to make the utility companies to buy the excess energy from the homeowners, what would make the costs of electricity to go down. Regarding the second method, the agency may work with the plants, in order to reduce the level of emissions by, for example, installing filters.
    5. Even though, in my opinion, it was not clearly stated in the article what the emissions trading is, I have figured out the following definition. Emission trading is a form of carbon dioxide emissions reduction through a system of emission allowances that are assigned an economical value, what allows organizations to buy or sell the before mentioned allowances as forms of economical entities. In my opinion, the idea of the concept is to transform the emission allowances into a scarce economical resource that would allow organizations to save money by selling their allowances to others whose emissions are higher and require higher emission allowances.
    6. In my opinion, the option of emissions trading/allowances is the best choice for the present problem. It would create incentives to companies that go green to reduce their levels of emissions. Regarding the tax method, in my opinion, the organizations, as always, will find a way how to overcome or escape paying them through various legal procedures.

    Reply
  6. hongki

    1. The remedy that Henry Paulson views as the most effective is putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide, which means a carbon tax. He believes this to be the most effective remedy is because this can empower the market place to find the most efficient response. Also, it can increase incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies. More than that, Henry Paulson thought that it would change the behavior of both individuals and businesses because rational decision making consumers will not willing to pay more for carbon emission. By then, people would not be depended on carbon entirely.

    2. The reasons that make Paulson think attempting to do more than this now would not be advisable are that there are so many disagreement, including from members of his own Republican Party, on how to address this issue while remaining economically competitive. There are many conflicts between environment and economic. Also, people ignore this climate problem because the serious problems have not come out yet, therefore, they do not want to take any action that will cost so much money. I agree with Paulson because the problem is coming up and become more seriously but people still concern more about money. Moreover, Paulson is right that this problem cannot be solved without strong leadership from the developing world.

    3. Paul Krugman makes an argument which is “A carbon tax may be the best thing we could do, but we won’t actually do it” is based on the “theory of second best”. He thought that if the Republican can adapt the carbon tax, they should be able to adapt other better policies. Moreover, Paul Krugman believed that even though a carbon tax maybe is the best thing to do it, it is hard to achieve. Therefore, why not using the second method which is not only can help to solve the problem, but also more easier to achieve.

    4. There are three alternatives that can more easily be achieved. Firstly, utilities buy back the electricity generated by homeowner’s solar panels. Second, government support for clear energy through subsidies and loan guarantees. Third, create cap and trade system.

    5. Emissions trading is a market-based regulatory program called Cap and Trade to regulate emissions and improve air quality. When combines with offsets, it will accelerate global emissions reductions. It establishes a quantifiable, legally enforceable limit on emissions which will ensure that essential climate change targets are met at the lower possible cost. Also, it is specifically designed to deliver the environmental objective.

    6. I think the most effective policy between these three proposals would be the cap and trade system. This method not only can provide the private sector with the flexibility required to reduce emissions while stimulating technological innovation and economic growth, but also can determine how efficiently and effectively emissions reduction targets will be achieved at the lowest possible cost. That means a cap and trade system can balance the conflicts between the environment and economy. On the other hand, a carbon tax cannot ensure emissions will be reduced to the necessary level while increasing in energy prices. Lastly, Cap and trade system has proven its effectiveness in the US through the acid rain program, therefore, which means it is more feasible compared with those two proposals.

    Reply
  7. hiulee

    1) Henry Paulson believes by putting a carbon tax on emissions of carbon dioxide is the most efficient response to reduce carbon emissions. Adding tax on carbon emissions will make them to develop other technologies that cost less. Also, the energy will become cleaner and create jobs while developing the new energy.
    2) Paulson does not advise to do more than this because people just think about the small picture and the short term profit. I am totally agreed with him, because the climate change becomes a serious problem. If we don’t take this problem seriously, our planet will be explode or cover with water. It is not easy to change everything at once, so we can just do it step by step. Like Paulson said we can add tax on carbon emissions and make people understand the risk if we ignore climate change.
    3) Paul Krugman will make this argument is because he knew that most of the people not willing to pay extra money by install the home solar technique. Also, the individuals and firms will not pay the price for emitting carbon. Therefore, carbon tax will be like health reform, it will have a long way to go.
    4) Krugman has three alternatives that can more easily be achieved if there is a willingness to do them. The first one is requiring the utilities buy back the electricity generated by homeowners’ solar panels. The second one is government support for clean energy via subsidies and loan guarantees. The last one is encouraging states or groups of states to create cap-and-trade systems that effectively put a price on carbon. All these alternatives can really make the society to think about what they can do to make some changes.
    5) Emissions trading is a market-based approach to controlling pollution. By creating tradable pollution permits it attempts to add the profit motive as an incentive for good performance
    6) I think cap and trade is the most effective policy because it really help to reduce the pollution at the lower cost. Compare to carbon tax, people are more willing to accept the cap and trade. Also, the EU tired the carbon tax in the early 1990s and they failed. Therefore I think cap and trade can help the reduction in the emissions of pollutants.

    Reply
  8. AnnaC

    Discussion Questions;
    1. The best remedy that is viewed as the most effective that Harry Paulson views is that carbon tax should be established. By setting up a carbon tax it would ultimately limit and or at least lessen the carbon emission.The idea behind this is that if carbon emission will be taxed it would force the individuals to re-think it.Possibly leading to the idea for the green technology.

    2.Paulson argues that attempting to do more than this now, would not be advisable. The reasons he makes for taking this position is that he does not believe this would be the ultimate goal to solve this issue. Paulson believes this is a temporary solution to a more serious issues. This is an issue that needs much more attention and to completely resolve this issue, it would be extremely costly. Paulson suggests a “domino effect” to solve the problem. He believes that through certain steps we may resolve the issue.

    3.Krugman disagrees with Mr.Paulson he feels that the government will not be able to force taxes. There are certain regulations that are in place to solve the issue of carbon dioxide pollutants. Krugman believes that by placing a cost on emission. This would be an idea that he stands behind.

    4.Krugeman argues that there are several alternatives that can more easily be achieved if there is a willingness to do them. Some of these alternatives are utilities buy back electricity generated by homeowners solar panels. The push for the use of solar technologies by offering investment programs. The last alternatives is the agency Environmental Protection Agency that would limit individuals to trade systems that would link with the gas emission.

    5.Emission trading is a way to have control over carbon emission. The government would limit or set up a max on the degree of pollutants.

    6.Realistically, no i do not agree with any of the 3 proposals that are discussed. I believe there are ways around it and if individual exceed on the emission there will be no direct or actual punishment. The only proposal that is the most beneficial that I would think be to tax the carbon emission. Maybe the idea of paying for it would limit some individuals. I believe that there still needs to be a more concrete proposals.

    Reply
  9. mcanarte

    1) What remedy does Henry Paulson view as the most effective means to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels (i.e. sources such as coal fired power plants)? Why does he believe this to be the most effective remedy?
    Putting a tax in emissions of carbon dioxide- a carbon tax, with the money collected he says can give incentives to be used in develop new clean energy technology. He supports the idea” that price on carbon would change the behavior of both individuals and businesses.”Fossil fuel and renewable energy subsidies should be eliminated. The cooperation between China and United States is imminent to solve the problem because they are the biggest consumers of energy.
    2) Paulson also argues that attempting to do more than this now would not be advisable. What reasons does he make for taking this position? Do you agree/disagree?
    Sorry I not understand this question, but I think is about the government majority wait the problems arrive to later try to fix it , and Paulson thinks that will be to late for future generations if we didn’t do something now. Yes I think we need to work together now to not permit the problem advanced, but not accept he’s tax ideology.
    3) In his response to Paulson, Paul Krugman argues that “A carbon tax may be the best thing we could do, but we won’t actually do it”. Explain why he makes this argument.
    A carbon tax will elevates the energy cost but not ensure the emission of carbon dioxide will be reduced and we not have enough information of the carbon value to tax it. He said a tax program is less flexibility of a trade program and in the other hand will take time to check this strategy and we haven’t it, need to act now.
    4) Krugman then argues that there are several other alternatives that can more easily be achieved if there is a willingness to do them. What are some of these alternatives and what benefit does he see in these alternatives?
    Krugman enforces to put laws that will restrained the use of carbon monoxide that limit the emission of the gas and opposite to Paulson it not higher prices of carbon directly to government and community. He says that environmental targets and changes need to be global. Cap and Trade had proved to be affectivity in other programs too like the acid rain program.
    5) Finally, the International Emissions Trading Association argues that the most effective means of addressing the current carbon emissions crisis is the adoption of emissions trading. What are emissions trading?
    Pollution prevention, product stewardship, and clean technologies is what International Emissions Trading Association support through a emission trading program that want the benefit of it stay directly in the population advances.
    The emission trading: a cap-and-trade system that is used to control pollution by providing economics incentives to them that achieves reduction in the emission of pollutants.
    6) Which – if any – of these three proposals do you see as offering the most effective policy and why?
    I think for now the International Emissions Association idea because bring us as the need to find a strategy that develops” a sustainable global economy: a economy the planet is capable of supporting indefinitely.” EB = P x A x T is a good achievement and thinking to reducing the environmental burden with T (technology ) being the clue of future with projects that preventing or controlling pollution. But not sure that the ca-and-trade system that support is off of corruption because the systems that limited something all the time find the illegality way to continuous in business.

    Reply
  10. lvedwards

    1. What remedy does Henry Paulson view as the most effective means to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels (i.e. sources such as coal fired power plants)? Why does he believe this to be the most effective remedy?
    According to Henry Paulson the most effective method to reduce carbon emission from fossil fuels is by putting a price on the emission of carbon dioxide. This result in a process called Carbon Tax. The main goal of this act is to create incentives to develop newer, cleaner energy technologies and eventually changed the behavioral patters of individuals and businesses.
    Henry Paulson made several arguments why he believes carbon tax promotes an effective remedy. A tax on carbon emissions will unleash a wave of innovation to develop technologies, lower the costs of clean energy, in return creating jobs opportunities as the United States and other nations develop new energy products and infrastructure. This would strengthen national security by reducing the world’s dependence on governments like Russia and Iran.

    2. Paulson also argues that attempting to do more than this now would not be advisable. What reasons does he make for taking this position? Do you agree/disagree?
    Paulson argues that attempting to do more than this now would not be advisable due to the lack of knowledge and understanding surrounding the effects carbon dioxide will eventually have on the environment as a whole. That this point Paulson realized that he is taking a big risk knowing that by releasing carbon dioxide fuels within the environment heats up the planet. Paulson uses the financial crisis of 2008 to support this argument.
    I do agree that carbon tax will promotes a lot of benefits to the environment. This in return will causes fewer carbon emission in the atmosphere, promotes jobs opportunities in developing newer technologies.

    3. In his response to Paulson, Paul Krugman argues that “A carbon tax may be the best thing we could do, but we won’t actually do it”. Explain why he make this argument.
    Krugman believe is that carbon tax will definitely promote effect behaviors and outcome in the environment but refuse to do so, due to other alternative that needs to be explore. This includes installing solar energy into the homes.

    4. Krugman then argues that there are several other alternatives that can more easily be achieved if there is a willingness to do them. What are some of these alternatives and what benefit does he see in these alternatives?
    Some of the alternatives that’s Krugman propose was utilities buying back the electricity generated by homeowner’s solar panels, government support for clean energy on subsidies and loan guaranteed and creating a cap and trade system which addresses the greenhouse gas emissions, this action is carried out by Environmental Protection Agency. All these alternatives that use propose brings about a wider spectrum on how society as a whole can come together to have a change while exploring different ideas that are now in a working progress.

    5. Finally, the International Emissions Trading Association argues that the most effective means of addressing the current carbon emissions crisis is the adoption of emissions trading. What is emissions trading?
    Emissions trading are also known as cap and trade. This is a market based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. A central authority (usually a governmental body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that may be emitted.
    6) Which – if any – of these three proposals do you see as offering the most effective policy and why?
    I believe that the cap and trade is the most effective policy, mainly because it set a standard and limitations. It limits the production of greenhouse gases a state or factory can produce. If the state or factory doesn’t follow these guidelines a fine is required to be paid. This basically open the door to help educate and promote the issue surrounding the environment.

    Reply
    1. Haresh

      1). Henry Paulson thinks that placing a carbon tax is the most effective means to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel. He believes this is the most effective means to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel because having a price on the carbon waste would lead people to build new technology; technology that produce less carbon so they wouldn’t have to waste a lot of money on this tax.
      2). Paulson also argues that attempting to do more than this now would not be advisable because it will cost a lot to attack the problem head on. I disagree with him in the sense that I personally think that the government should be able to place an order that every company must fellow every time we are faced with this situation. However, with the idea of being realistic, I agree with him. It’s not like the companies would want to lose or waste money with something that’s not part of the business so it’s most likely they will cause some huge problems for everyone. In the end, I am neutral.
      3). Paul Krugman argues that “A carbon tax may be the best thing we could do, but we won’t actually do it” because he thinks that though it’s a great idea, it’s not the best idea. He believes that the tax on carbon is great in the long term perspective but it does nothing to change our situation. Also those companies will find ways to get around the taxes like passing it on to its consumers.
      4). Krugman then argues that there are several other alternatives that can more easily be achieved if there is a willingness to do them; alternatives such as green solar technologies with the help of the help of the government through loans, introducing rules to using fuels more effectively to reduce carbon emissions and also create a cap and trade system that impose a price on carbon.
      5). The International Emissions Trading Association argues that the most effective means of addressing the current carbon emissions crisis is the adoption of emissions trading which is to control the carbon emission but placing a limit of pollutant that companies and get rid of or buy a permit if they need to get rid of more. This puts the brakes on high polluting companies and rewards the companies that try to use clean energy.
      6). I think that the cap and trade system is the best proposal because I feel that it’s the most effective way of immediately reducing the amount of damage we are doing to the planet. I love this idea because it not only set a limit of how much a company pollute but also rewards the others that are trying to use green energy. There is one thing I find stupid about this idea and I hate it. I don’t like the idea of buying a permit. I think that the government saw a way of making an easy million or 2 here and there and that’s why they have this permit. I agree that some companies need to throughout more than others but I feel that there should be a time limit or a number limit of permits they can buy. I would have love the idea if the cap and trade system wouldn’t let companies buy permits after like 5 or 10 years. If companies can’t make that deadline, than they would have to pay the government ¼ of their profit for every year after that 5 or 10 years deadline.

      Reply
  11. Sergiy V12yslobotski

    1. What remedy does Henry Paulson view as the most effective means to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels (i.e. sources such as coal fired power plants)? Why does he believe this to be the most effective remedy? Paulson believes the putting tax on carbon emission, meaning everything that reduces fuels should be taxed – is the best solution to prevent environment from an extreme on-going pollution. To avoid imposed taxes, all the severe pollution discharge industries will prepare regulations or move towards a new-invented machinery that will have a lower CO2 release rank.

    2) Paulson also argues that attempting to do more than this now would not be advisable. What reasons does he make for taking this position? Do you agree/disagree? In my opinion, if more than this would be done, it might not be advisable due to the government need for involvement in the current situation. Overdue of the laws and political regulations will most likely either harm the environment or do none to prevent it from CO2 contamination. I agree with Pulson since any government prefers to give more attention into economical profit disregarding emission controls rather then a long term climate problems. In a short picture, carbon tax looks like a very doable solution rather then putting a thousand rules onto the regulations knowing that no one will follow it.

    3) In his response to Paulson, Paul Krugman argues that “A carbon tax may be the best thing we could do, but we won’t actually do it”. Explain why he make this argument. I think today, very little part of a society are seriously concerned about the environmental future and none of them prefers solar panel installation processes and related issues that cost more than a typical harmful interventions. In a short term, environment damage is not seen so to them, environmental protection is “pointless process.”

    4) Krugman then argues that there are several other alternatives that can more easily be achieved if there is a willingness to do them. What are some of these alternatives and what benefit does he see in these alternatives? The alternatives that Krugman proposed, are utilities buying back the electricity generated by homeowners’ solar panels, government support for clean energy via subsidies and loan guarantees, and finally, create a cap and trade system. The authorities like Environmental Protection Agency shall propose emission control tax to reduce CO2 release onto the atmosphere from a power plants and related substances.

    5) Finally, the International Emissions Trading Association argues that the most effective means of addressing the current carbon emissions crisis is the adoption of emissions trading. What is emissions trading? Emissions trading is cap and trade (or similar) Krugman proposal that services market-based approach to control pollution. it provides economical reason and encouragement for attaining reduction in the emission of toxic waste.

    6) Which – if any – of these three proposals do you see as offering the most effective policy and why?
    I believe that cap and trade is easiest solution people now are willing to go with. I think varied industries today are familiar with how the common law rules work and can easily neglect tax collection from their every-day duties in a legal approach.

    Reply
  12. Haresh

    1). Henry Paulson thinks that placing a carbon tax is the most effective means to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel. He believes this is the most effective means to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel because having a price on the carbon waste would lead people to build new technology; technology that produce less carbon so they wouldn’t have to waste a lot of money on this tax.
    2). Paulson also argues that attempting to do more than this now would not be advisable because it will cost a lot to attack the problem head on. I disagree with him in the sense that I personally think that the government should be able to place an order that every company must fellow every time we are faced with this situation. However, with the idea of being realistic, I agree with him. It’s not like the companies would want to lose or waste money with something that’s not part of the business so it’s most likely they will cause some huge problems for everyone. In the end, I am neutral.
    3). Paul Krugman argues that “A carbon tax may be the best thing we could do, but we won’t actually do it” because he thinks that though it’s a great idea, it’s not the best idea. He believes that the tax on carbon is great in the long term perspective but it does nothing to change our situation. Also those companies will find ways to get around the taxes like passing it on to its consumers.
    4). Krugman then argues that there are several other alternatives that can more easily be achieved if there is a willingness to do them; alternatives such as green solar technologies with the help of the help of the government through loans, introducing rules to using fuels more effectively to reduce carbon emissions and also create a cap and trade system that impose a price on carbon.
    5). The International Emissions Trading Association argues that the most effective means of addressing the current carbon emissions crisis is the adoption of emissions trading which is to control the carbon emission but placing a limit of pollutant that companies and get rid of or buy a permit if they need to get rid of more. This puts the brakes on high polluting companies and rewards the companies that try to use clean energy.
    6). I think that the cap and trade system is the best proposal because I feel that it’s the most effective way of immediately reducing the amount of damage we are doing to the planet. I love this idea because it not only set a limit of how much a company pollute but also rewards the others that are trying to use green energy. There is one thing I find stupid about this idea and I hate it. I don’t like the idea of buying a permit. I think that the government saw a way of making an easy million or 2 here and there and that’s why they have this permit. I agree that some companies need to throughout more than others but I feel that there should be a time limit or a number limit of permits they can buy. I would have love the idea if the cap and trade system wouldn’t let companies buy permits after like 5 or 10 years. If companies can’t make that deadline, than they would have to pay the government ¼ of their profit for every year after that 5 or 10 years deadline.

    Reply
  13. Bryant Garcia

    1) The best solution against the pollution of the environment related to the use of fossil fuels is to tax carbon. In his article, first, he explains why the high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are dangerous and how they cause the global warming. After that, he analyzes the cost effectiveness of his proposal by speaking about fortification and protection of big coastal cities from the potential threats of floods and hurricanes related to the global warming. In Paulson’s opinion, a carbon tax is the most effective solution to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels that lead to the global warming. According to the author, we do not have much time available and we have act as fast as possible.
    2) Paulson argues that attempting to do more than this now is not advisable because we don’t have a lot of information on what exactly is going to occur with our environment. We do know that the burning of fossil fuels is warming up Earth, with the risks of melting ice caps and rising sea levels. Paulson states that waiting for more information before acting is a drastic risk. He argues that we will never have enough information but we do have enough to act. Paulson uses the financial crisis of 2008 as a reason to support his position. I agree with Paulson’s solution because taxing carbon emissions would lead to the development of new technologies and would also reduce to usage of emissions. The best solution would be to remove the use of fossil fuels however that isn’t the case, so reducing it is our option.
    3) Paul Krugman makes this argument because he knew that most of the people will not be willing to pay to have the solar energy technologies installed in their homes. The individuals and firms will not pay the price for emitting carbon. Therefore, carbon tax will be a remedy to this problem.
    4) Krugeman argues that there are several alternatives that can more easily be achieved if there is a willingness to do them. Some of these alternatives are utilities buy back electricity generated by homeowner’s solar panels. The push for the use of solar technologies by offering investment programs. The last alternative is the agency Environmental Protection Agency that would limit individuals to trade systems that would link with the gas emission.
    5) Emissions trading are also known as cap and trade. This is a market based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. The government will set a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that may be emitted.
    6) I believe that cap and trade is easiest solution people will convey with. The majority of the industries now a day are familiar with how common law rules work and how easily it can neglect tax collection from their every-day duties in a legal approach.

    Reply
  14. saloua

    1- The neoclassical perspective in the author’s point of view is the economic approach toward pure exchange, which requires producers to reduce everything that is causing pollution/ climate changes such as carbon dioxide. That will be achieved by paying taxes on these emissions which will benefit the cities in many ways; more technologies will be developed, more cleaner energies will be created and their prices will be lower, and more jobs will be created. So this can be an example/ a way to solve the climate change/ crisis even though it is not easy to convince the global to act toward these changes.
    2- the assumptions about human economic behavior are to consume the maximum with the limited sources available.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.