For those that have been listening to President Obama on the campaign trail for the past two years or so, it should be no surprise that the President was going to take action on implementing global warming policies once in office. Unfortunately for some of the Democratic Senators who supported him during his run to office, he is sticking to his word sooner than expected. President Obama has proposed climate-change laws that are aimed to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by implementing a cap and then selling the pollution rights to businesses.
The President estimates that by designating property rights on these admissions then allowing them to be sold and traded, it will generate about $650 billion in the first ten years. The plan sounds simple enough, but has ruffled some feathers since two thirds of this revenue will then be used for tax cuts for the low- and middle income families to help ease the pain of any increased energy prices that will be the result of this new policy. Most of the opposition can be found in the landlocked states of the rust belt that already must deal with higher energy prices, and fear that any further increase could be catastrophic to an economy that is already in shambles.
While some argue that the President is setting a standard that is long overdue and could possible help generate needed revenue for the economy, others do not agree. Due to the large scale, cost, and rapid timescale for implementation many people who were once fond of the idea have now grown disenchanted with the idea of this drastic change of policy.
Since the majority of the revenues for these tax cuts are going towards the middle and lower class, I am fairly certain this will gain the support necessary to become a law. I think it is a scary time to raise the price of anything knowingly with the way the economy has turned. It is about time somebody became responsible for the vast amounts of carbon-dioxides that are emitted annually. I think those who are firm believers of global warming and those who aren’t can agree mutually that regardless of the severity or magnitude of the gasses being released, it can’t be a good thing. Like any other form of pollution it must be accounted for and reduced when at all possible, if the government can generate some revenue in the process then by all means we need it these days. I think it is a bold idea and respect the President for trying to move forward with it, but he should just stay true to his promise of those tax cuts.
--Matt DiPasquale
