By Thomas Cummings
In the New York Times article “In Energy Taxes,Tools to Help Tackle Climate Change” by Eduardo Porter,
he talks about possible solutions to the climate change problem. As weather
patterns become increasingly inconsistent, many Americans are less hesitant to
accept the science behind global warming and therefore open to possible
solutions even if it represents a personal sacrifice. As President Obama
mentioned in his inauguration address, some changes will have to occur to
combat the issue. One such change would be an energy tax says the author of
this article. Taxing fuel and energy usage would be effective however the
article also mentions that it would affect the lower class even proportionally
more than the upper and middle classes. This is an issue that the authors Erik
Olin Wright and Joel Rogers also mention in their text American Society: How it Really Works. Closing the wealth gap
between social classes is also one of President Obama’s main concerns.
So we
know we must do something about climate change, with growing support from the
American Public and the White House. However we also know that a broad fuel
tax, although effective, would be expensive and may not have a purely positive
impact on society. So what should be done? The authors of American Society offer a different explanation with different
solutions.
Rogers
and Wright credit much of the U.S.’s high emissions rates to powerful economic
figures in cooperation with the government. As would be the case of large
automobile companies, they say that “in general, the most profitable cars to produce
are not the most energy efficient” (p. 81). Using their size and economic
influence many of these actors obstruct possible solutions because it would mean
a profit loss for them. The book also says quite directly that the government
support of non-renewable energy sources has kept the industries afloat. 50
percent of government subsidies were directed to oil and natural gas in a
period from 1950 to 2006 while only 6 percent to renewable energy. They say
that “The nuclear industry would not exist without systematic government
sponsorship” and that “The oil industry was directly encouraged by government
policy, particularly through a wide range of generous tax breaks” (p. 82). The
government has also gotten involved to reduce emissions but the evidence
clearly shows that to make a change, Obama’s administration has all the power
and tools necessary.
Some
people who defend natural resource energy have adopted the phrase “Let the
market decide” with the idea that if it is profitable to develop sustainable
energy solutions, the market will make it happen. This short sighted idea
however doesn’t take into account government support of their industries. So I
say, yes, let the market decide, but that means no government support in either
direction or equal subsidies to both renewable and non-renewable options. In
this free capitalist market, the best solution will present itself, hopefully
before it’s too late.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario