Will Restricting Emissions Damage the Economy?
Will Restricting Emissions Damage the Economy?
Restricting emissions will not damage the economy. I most agree with Aaron Ezroj that emissions will have no damaging effects to the economy. Paul Cicio and Aaron Ezroj have differing opinions concerning the effects of emissions on the economy. Whereas Cicio suggests that emissions will have damaging effects on the economy, Ezroj disagrees by suggesting that the emissions will not damage the economy. Cicio argues that the capping of the greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial sector will have negative effects on jobs and investments, and increase the imports. He argues that the emissions will not include many of the developing countries to the situation, but will increase exports to the United States. Paul argues that the emissions will affect the economy negatively because climate policy in this sector is trade and encompasses energy, employment, and economic policy. On the other hand, Ezroj argues that the emissions will not affect the economy. Aaron suggests that the emissions through cap-and-trade programs will fuel the global economy.
I agree with Aaron Ezroj that emissions will not have damaging effects to the economy because of various reasons. First, the emissions will lead to the development of the global economy. Aaron suggests that the cap-and-trade programs of emissions will lead to the formation of a wide scope of business opportunities. That is; the financial sector will develop to facilitate funds and money in exchanges that are change-related on climatic grounds. There will be the emergence of many projects of carbon capture-and-storage. Moreover, there will be vehicles of advanced technology such as plug-ins will become the norm. The non-legal and legal consulting agencies will undertake operations in advising government companies and agencies on climate change. Moreover, the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) website has significant information on the evaluation of options of climate policy, costs and benefits. From the information, taking of important actions to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses will result in important benefits to the economy. The benefits result from the reduced risks to the health of individuals ("Economics | Climate Change | US EPA," n.d.). As such, there is development of the economy because the revenue that could have been used in treating individuals is channeled to economic development.
On the other hand, I disagree with the argument of Paul Cicio that the emissions will damage the economy. Paul suggests that cap-and-trade programs together with other forms of controlling the greenhouse gas emissions will be costly to the governments because according to him, the industrial sector will pay twice for that. Additionally, he suggests that the cap will damage the capacity of the country’s industrial sector to recover the market share from the imports and the increased exports. I disagree because Jonas Meckling talks about important facts concerning carbon coalitions in relation to rise of trading emissions and business. That is, with the emissions, there will be increased business especially in the market-based governance of climate (Meckling, 2011).
In conclusion, greenhouse emissions will not have damaging effects to the economy of the country. As a matter of fact, the emissions will fuel the global economy. As evident in the argument of Aaron Ezroj, there will be the formation of businesses because of the need for different programs and equipment of managing and controlling the emissions. The rise in the number of business will increase marginal profits of individuals leading to economic growth.
References
Economics | Climate Change | US EPA. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics.html
Meckling, J. (2011). Carbon coalitions: Business, climate politics, and the rise of emissions trading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
