I've spent the past two weeks studying for the Literature subject GRE (which will be over on Saturday, thank goodness), so staying up-to-date on the news and posting hasn't exactly been my priority. Sorry, guys!
Regardless, a week ago the Obama Administration announced that it would be encouraging environmental advocacy not only through the passage of a bill being proposed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) but also by instituting new regulations for industry through the E.P.A. This tactic appeals to me; I feel the future of planetary health and prosperity (yes, prosperity being dependent on how well we use our limited resources in the present) should be more than a game of cap-and-trade, Hungry Hungry Hippos among big business. Congress, in a shark tank of oil, auto, and other industry lobbyists, would be forced to include loopholes and make concessions to the very companies that are hastening global warming.
That's not to suggest that it would be beneficial, or even possible, to abruptly put a stop to all excessive emissions. Lisa Jackson, EPA administrator, was clear in her interview with the New York Times that only the greatest producers of green house gases will fall under the proposed regulations, and only when building new facilities or renovating old ones. In these instances, the companies would have to employ the latest technology in reducing emissions, or face fines. Yes, this may be costly; but whose shoulders should the burden of progress fall on? This is necessary action, or companies would have no incentive to push for lower emissions.
The "green" movement is not a fad. We simply cannot afford to lose interest in environmental health. I, for one, look forward (to 2011) when the regulations may be ready to go into place.
No comments:
Post a Comment