On May 24, 2015, Pope Francis issued his second encyclical, “On care for our common home,” addressing environmental issues and climate change. He called for a “revolution” in the international approach and argued that the situation is “now reaching a breaking point.” The United Nations for its part has declared, “Climate change is not a far-off problem. It is happening now and is having very real consequences on people’s lives. Climate change is disrupting national economies, costing us dearly today and even more tomorrow.” And the Pew Research Center has found that across the world (and especially in Africa and Latin America), people identify climate change as the top global threat. The next administration’s response to pressure demanding US action will impact not only diplomatic strategy, but also military posture. After all, the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review cited climate change as a major challenge for which the military must also plan.:
1.) Do you believe that the world is warming? Is climate change a naturally occurring phenomenon, or has man disproportionately contributed to warming? The climate has never been static, but has always been changing (while my graduate work revolved around Iranian history, my undergraduate research focused upon forensic climatology, utilizing mathematical modeling based on correlations derived from leaf physiognomy and then extrapolating past climate based on data sets derived from Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary fossils). The real dispute is not whether climate is changing (even if some dispute whether it continues to warm) but rather whether the rate of climate change is accelerating to a catastrophic conclusion. A broader debate revolves around the degree to which human activity versus naturally occurring phenomena cause climate change. Many policy makers urging regulation of carbon emissions or other human activity argue that warming is predominantly due to anthropogenic factors, such as human production of greenhouse gases. Melting ice caps on Mars—as well as previous warm periods on earth—might suggest a larger role for solar cycles. While evidence suggests some anthropogenic impact on warming, those emphasizing the human aspect are undercut by the repeated failure of their models to predict warming trends, although such failures might simply be the result of the extraordinary complexity of the atmosphere. Nevertheless, no other field of science repeatedly embraces conclusions or seeks policy to be based upon models which have repeatedly delivered inaccurate predictions.
2.) Is climate change necessarily bad for mankind? There is paucity of discussion regarding the consequence of rising temperatures. Between 1900 and 2000, the average global temperatures rose 0.65 Celsius. During the same period, life expectancy probably doubled from perhaps 30 to over 60. Per capita income, meanwhile, increased almost ten-fold, from $680 to $6,500. If the focus is on the rate of warming, shouldn’t the end of the “little ice age” between the 14th and 19th century have brought a retraction in global health and economy? (It didn’t.) Likewise, the “Medieval warm period” coincided with the apex of Islamic civilization. Certainly, the increase in life span and economic productivity is first and foremost due to unrelated medical advances and the industrial revolution, but that suggests also that the impact of climate is just one factor among many that determines health and economic strength. Indeed, as AEI energy and environmental policy expert Benjamin Zycher notes (and his entire collection of analyses is an invaluable resource), that is why the Environmental Protection Agency’s integrated assessment models show net benefits of warming through mid-century, with the theoretical net negatives (for which evidence is slight) eclipsing them toward the end of the century.
3.) Do you support “Cap-and-Trade” schemes? While running for president in April 2008, Barack Obama endorsed a “cap-and-trade” scheme to control carbon emissions, involving a government body or appointed entity to issue permits for carbon emissions. In effect, the idea combines the desire to control emissions with market flexibility in implementation. Once in office, however, the Obama administration largely walked away from cap and trade and turned to traditional government regulation. Uncertainty always hampers investment and industrial development and so not only environmentalists but also investors in numerous industries will seek clarity on the regulatory strategy which any future administration will embrace. Regardless, the bigger question is whether both command-and-control and cap-and-trade schemes are geared more to wealth transfer from rich to poor than environmental impact.
4.) Should the Environmental Protection Agency regulate greenhouse gases? In June 2014, the EPA put forward a proposed rule to regulate emissions from power plants, a move that would effectively put dozens out-of-business and significantly raise energy costs for both industry and households. The agency is reportedly considering new rules on commercial transportation. Opponents of the EPA rules, including numerous governors, question their application to existing power plants. Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe, once a legal mentor to Obama, likened the new rules to “burning the constitution.” At its core, the dispute revolves around the legal authority of agencies to change existing interpretations in order to further regulation versus empowering legislatures to issue new laws. In a new administration what would the role of the EPA be in regulating carbon emissions? More broadly, what should the proper focus of the EPA be? Does the Clean Air Act empower the EPA to regulate entire state power systems?
5.) Is alternative energy the answer? As the Obama administration has moved to shutter carbon dioxide-emitted power plants and more stringently regulate the coal industry, it has sought simultaneously to encourage investment in alternative energy, including solar, hydroelectric and geothermal. Critics, however, charge that alternative energy either isn’t all that it’s made out to be or that it comes with significant practical and environmental drawbacks. Is diversification the right answer economically and practically if it requires heavy subsidies for otherwise uneconomical sources? Does alternative energy reduce pollution, or simply swap one type of pollution for another? To what extent should the US government massage markets to help or hinder energy investment? Fracking and clean coal are vital new innovations, but often controversial on a local level. What is the proper role of the federal government in these debates? Finally, the United States is now the world’s top oil producer, but is number seven in natural gas exports. Do you believe that it is beneficial for the United States to increase its market share as an energy exporter?
from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1H3BkbC
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment