Us Government Combatting Industrialization Effects

Since the late 1800s, rapid industrialization has negatively impacted the environment, pumping toxic chemicals into the air and water bodies. The issue of climate change is a long-standing one, causing massive amounts of global pollution with damage caused for billions of people. Moreover, our continued use of fossil fuels and other greenhouse gas emitting activities creates damages that will affect future generations. The most prominent greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, accounting for three‐quarters of global emissions. 84 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are in the energy sector.

In 2017, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,456.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. This is why a new Carbon Tax is being proposed at the national level by Progressive Democrats such as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. In order to discourage the many corporations of the country from continuing using carbon-intensive materials, adding a stipulation for continuing the use of harmful pollutants would be a first step in implementing a nation-wide solution. There are two competing models to accomplish this: a cap-and-trade system and a carbon tax.

Policy-makers, especially those who are progressive Democrats, are leaning towards designing a carbon tax, which would serve as an extra fee attached to producers of harmful greenhouse gases in order to discourage their release. To further incentivize corporations to decrease emissions, the tax would increase with time. However, a precursory policy has been enacted since Obama’s Presidency.

In August 2015, the Obama Administration released the Clean Power Plan, a set of EPA regulations to cut GHG emissions from existing electric power plants. The plan used “building blocks” of potential emission reduction channels including efficiency improvements in boilers, (from emissions-intensive fuel sources to less intensive sources). Based on EPA’s analysis of the potential for emission reductions in each state, targets were set that could be in the form of emission rate standards, mass‐based standards, or a “state measures” standard.

This policy originated in the executive branch but through the efforts of an interest group that is apart of the EPA. Since this policy was enacted by the executive branch, the main players in its adoption are all apart of the Obama-era cabinet. Obama was the most important, as he revised the original plan proposed by the EPA. The other 3 main players were, in order, Scott Pruit, Steven Chu, and Lisa Jackson. They were the EPA administrator, secretary of Energy, and Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency respectively. Their roles in the advocacy of the policy were to ensure the maximum protection of environment and industry as to not have one at the cost of the other.

The main benefit of adopting a carbon tax is the encouraging shift in production. The creation of new technologies that are low-carbon and more energy-efficient. By changing and evolving new technology, the relative prices of many products can be altered in order to stimulate the economy, all to further encourage the uptake of cost-effective, low-carbon alternatives.

Second, low-carbon-emitting alternatives would be used to replace the current status quo of the carbon-intensive factors of production, products, and services. The current standard for acceptable emissions is set by the Copenhagen Accord, so in order to reduce the emissions level to an acceptable amount, the consumption of certain carbon-intensive products (e.g. cement, steel, and aluminum) needs to be reduced and/or the production technologies have to become less carbon-intensive.

To ensure that the country’s infrastructure is secured, appropriate policies under the Clean Power Plan ensure that the correct mitigation and adaptation strategies are taken into account in investment decisions with long-term lock-in effects. The combines efforts would help create dynamic incentives for research, development and technology innovation for low-carbon alternatives, which would also help the general population as it reduces the price gap between conventional, carbon-intensive technologies and low-carbon alternatives.

Under Obama’s second administration, the Clean Power Plan was redesigned to lower the emissions of the gas carbon dioxide by power generators all over the country. However, the plan was revisited in October 2017, where it was reported that the Trump administration was planning to end the Plan through the EPA. The then-current EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, announced that talks to revise the Plan through the formal process to change EPA rules would begin on October 10, 2017. While it was proposed early into Trump’s presidency, the process for changing the federal regulatory procedures and overcome any and potential legal challenges can take up to two years.

In May 2019, Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who had replaced Administer Scott Pruitt, announced plans to change the way the EPA calculates health risks of air pollution, resulting in the reporting of far fewer health-related deaths and making it easier to roll back the Clean Power Plan under the Trump Presidency. The new plan will be known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule which has been wholly praised by industry representatives for being a better aid to industry, as under the Clean Power Plan, many corporations tended to get bogged down by the extensive regulations.

I believe that the Clean Power Plan was a step in the right direction, but worked in opposition to who was supposed to be its allies. Instead of limiting the power of corporations, it should’ve focused on promoting newer and more efficient technologies to take place of the current ones. This was the main reason President Trump was largely supported when he proposed the ending of the Plan. President Trump’s stance on environmental protection is largely lackluster, as he chooses to promote the domestic economy over the global reduction of harmful emissions, seen through actions such as his exit of the Paris Climate Agreement.