http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-21/u-dot-k-dot-considers-environment-tax-to-replace-carbon-burden
This article from Business Week examines the environmental impacts of the newest government budget released in the UK. This provides an interesting case for looking at the various tradeoffs between the environment and the economy in public policy, as well as the disconnect between what politicians promise and what they deliver.
One of the main points of the article addresses the carbon tax that is currently in effect. The new policy appears to contain both improves and steps backward, as it imposes a tax on power generation that emits carbon, but at the same time does not support the continuance of the current tax on emissions for businesses. This is somewhat surprising from an administration that campaigned with promises to be the greenest cabinet ever in the UK, and this really speaks to the competing interests that influence environmental policies.
The rest of the article focuses on the other budgetary measures that are far more supportive of the status quo than of making a real improvement on the climate change front. The statement included support for airport expansion, offshore drilling, and decreased environmental regulation, as well as more cuts to solar subsidies. These all point to the government sacrificing long term goals of alternative energy development in favor of quick economic development strategies and continuing dependance on fossil fuels. As we can see then, the challenges in environmental policy are just as present elsewhere in the world as they are in the US and it will take a lot more work and very concentrated effort in order to turn the tide in favor of sustainable development over current business interests.
While I am glad that there are some policy changes that support green programs, I think the net result of the legislation is rather disheartening. As The Doctor points out, the majority of the legislation promotes the status quo. Additionally, many of the comments made by government officials seemed to be appeasing business and assuring them that they would not be inconvenienced. I think businesses should be pushed beyond what is easy. I recently saw that President Obama has increased fuel economy standards to over 50 mpg. However, this won’t be instituted until 2025. The technology exists to do this now—why wait 15 years? Making small changes is good, and a step in the right direction—but securing a future for humans on the Earth is going to require drastic action sooner or later.
ReplyDeleteThis article is rather discouraging considering the promises that were made by the "greenest ever" cabinet. Is this really the best they can do? It doesn't set a very good example for the rest of the world. Especially the strain these budget cuts will put on solar businesses is definitely not sending the right message about where the world's energy production needs to be heading.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I had the chance to meet with a couple people at AEP (American Electric Power) over spring break that gave me a different perspective. One of them worked in regulatory development, and I asked him about AEP's recommendation that the EPA extend the deadline for its new emission policies to decrease the burden on consumers. I was also of the "we need action now!" mindset. He explained that part of his job was making sure policymakers in DC realize that the neat percents and figures in their new regulations translates to leaving thousands of people unemployed and devastating their local economies as power plants have to close. I think sometimes when we read about policies we can lose sight of this as well. While I am not condoning the less than ambitious standards set by the UK here, I just wanted to point out that sometimes these decisions are more complicated than we think, and even if policies favor businesses, there are also people behind those businesses.