Buy a political science paper

Bush. W. Consumers might also pay more to heat and cool their homes and drive their cars—all with the goal of reducing global warming emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels over the next ten years. " For a strange alliance of free-market Republicans and renegade environmentalists, it represented a novel approach to cleaning up the world—by working with human nature instead of against it. Get rid of all that bureaucratic apparatus, he suggested. Ten million tons just sounded better. Henry was hiking in Maine's Acadia National Park one August in the 1980s when he first heard his friend C. " John B. The squabble about how to fix this problem had dragged on for years. In 1968, while studying pollution control in the Great Lakes, University of Toronto economist John Dales hit on a way for the costs to be paid with minimal government intervention, by using tradable permits or allowances. Getting all this to work in the real world required a leap do teenagers like doing homework of faith. But others say the White House was full of sports fans, and in basketball you aren't a player unless you score in double digits. The immediate aim was to break the impasse over acid rain. With the help of federal bureaucrats willing to violate the cardinal rule of bureaucracy—by surrendering regulatory power to the marketplace—emissions trading would become one of the most spectacular success stories in the history of the green movement. Instead of limiting the amount of emissions, the bill limited only the rate of emissions, and only in the dirtiest power plants. Misunderstandings over how emissions trading could work extended to the White House itself. Most environmentalists were pushing a "command-and-control" approach, with federal officials requiring utilities to install scrubbers capable of removing the sulfur dioxide from power-plant exhausts. But the in-house debate "went very, very fast. As a result, the law costs utilities just $3 billion annually, not $25 billion, according to a recent study in the Journal of Environmental Management; by cutting acid rain in half, it how to write a good application essay job also generates an estimated $122 billion a do research paper literature review year in benefits from avoided death and illness, healthier lakes and forests, and improved visibility on the Eastern Seaboard. "I thought he was smoking dope," recalls Henry, a Washington, D. Entrepreneur. Congress is now considering whether to expand the system to cover the carbon dioxide emissions implicated in climate change—a move that would touch the lives of almost every American. By the end of the Reagan administration, Congress had put forward and slapped down 70 different acid rain bills, and frustration ran so deep that Canada's prime minister bleakly joked about declaring war on the United States. At about the same time, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) had begun to question its own approach to cleaning up pollution, summed up in its unofficial motto: "Sue the bastards. The theory had been brewing for decades, beginning with early 20th-century British economist Arthur Cecil Pigou. But nobody much liked Pigou's means of doing it, by having regulators impose taxes and fees. Pigou proposed making the manufacturer and customer foot the bill for these unacknowledged costs—"internalizing the externalities," in the cryptic language of the dismal science. " It would be an odd alliance. The problem in the 1980s was help writing a compare and contrast essay that American power plants were sending up vast clouds of sulfur dioxide, which was falling back to earth in the form of acid rain, damaging buy a political science paper lakes, buy a political science paper forests and buildings across eastern Canada and the United States. Priceless. Some saw emissions trading as a scheme for polluters to buy their way out of fixing the problem. Gray was a conservative multimillionaire who drove a battered Chevy modified to burn methanol. Almost 20 years since the signing of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the cap-and-trade system continues to let polluters figure out the least expensive way to reduce their acid rain emissions. Just measure emissions rigorously, with a device mounted on the back end of every power plant, and then make sure emissions numbers match up with allowances at the end of the year. Congressional subcommittee members looked skeptical when witnesses at hearings tried to explain how there could be a market for something as worthless as emissions. The utility companies countered that the cost of such an approach would send them back to the Dark Ages. " But the two hit it off—a good thing, given that almost everyone else was against them. Many Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staffers mistrusted the new methods; they had had little success with some small-scale experiments in emissions trading, and buy a political science paper they worried that proponents were less interested in cleaning up pollution than in doing it cheaply. No one knows whether the United States can apply the system as successfully to the much larger problem of global warming emissions, or at what cost to the economy. Dan Dudek, the lead strategist for EDF, was a former academic Krupp once described as either "just plain loony, or the most powerful visionary ever to apply for a job at an environmental group. We didn't have time to fool around with it. John Sununu, the White House chief of staff, was furious. C. Boyden Gray talk about cleaning up the environment by letting people buy and sell the right to pollute. If Congress approves such a system in this country—the House had approved the legislation as we went to press—it could set emissions limits on every fossil-fuel power plant and every manufacturer in the nation. Despite powerful resistance, these allies buy a political science paper got the system adopted buy a political science paper as national law in 1990, to control the power-plant pollutants that cause acid rain. Nervous utility executives worried that buying allowances meant putting their confidence in a piece of paper printed by the government. At the same time, they figured that allowances might trade at $500 to $1,000 a ton, with the program costing them somewhere between $5 billion and $25 billion a year. EDF president Fred Krupp phoned Bush's new White House counsel—Boyden Gray—and suggested that the best way for Bush to make good on his pledge to become the "environmental president" was to fix the acid rain problem, and the best way to do that was by using the new tool of emissions trading. " President Bush not only accepted the cap, he overruled his advisers' recommendation of an eight million-ton cut in annual acid rain emissions in favor of the ten million-ton cut advocated by environmentalists. A careless manufacturer spewing noxious chemicals into the air, for instance, did not have to pay when the paint peeled off houses downwind—and neither did the consumer of the resulting product. When the Bush administration first proposed its wording for the legislation, the EDF and EPA staffers who had been working on the bill were shocked to see that the White House had not included a cap. But it would also "radically disempower the regulators," says EDF's Joe Goffman, "and for McLean to come up with that idea and become a champion for it was heroic. Gray liked the marketplace approach, and even before the Reagan administration expired, he put EDF staffers to work drafting legislation to make it happen. " Emissions trading became law as part of the Clean buy a political science paper Air Act of how to write a good dissertation proposal 1990. But if the system Gray had in mind now looks like a politically acceptable way to slow climate change—an approach being hotly debated in Congress—you could say that it got its start on the global stage on that hike up Acadia's Cadillac Mountain. ) Environmentalists, too, were skeptical. The EPA's previous experiments with emissions trading had faltered because they relied on a complicated system of permits and credits requiring frequent regulatory intervention. But global warming had also registered as front-page news for the first time that sweltering summer of 1988; according to Krupp, EDF and the Bush White House both felt from the start that emissions trading would ultimately be the best way to address this much larger challenge. Near the end of the intramural debate over the policy, one critical change took place. Sometime in the spring of 1989, a career EPA policy maker named Brian McLean proposed letting the market operate on its own. It was "a real stomach-falling-to-the-floor moment," says Nancy Kete, who was then managing the acid rain program for the EPA. " During the early years of command-and-control environmental regulation, EDF had buy a political science paper also noticed something fundamental about human nature, which is that people hate being told what to do. (Better relations with Canada? The opportunity came with the 1988 election of George H. Other members of a group called the Clean Air Coalition tried to censure EDF for what Krupp calls "the twofold sin of having talked to the Republican White House and having advanced this heretical idea. So a few iconoclasts in the group had started to flirt with marketplace solutions: give people a chance to turn a profit by being smarter than the next person, they reasoned, and they reporting services writing custom code would achieve things that no command-and-control bureaucrat would ever suggest. Joe Goffman, then an EDF lawyer, recalls other environmental advocates seething when EDF argued that emissions trading was just a better solution. He argued that transactions can have effects that don't show up in the price of a product. Following the American example with acid rain, Europe now research proposal master thesis economics relies on cap-and-trade to help about 10,000 large industrial plants find the most economical way of reducing their global warming emissions. It would be simple and provide unprecedented accountability. " But back then the term of art was "emissions trading," though some people called it "morally bankrupt" or even "a license to kill. He said the cap "was going to shut the economy down," Boyden Gray recalls. Gray, a tall, lanky heir to a tobacco fortune, was then working as a lawyer in the Reagan White House, where environmental ideas were only slightly more popular than godless Communism. She says she realized that "we had been talking past each other for months. People now call that system "cap-and-trade. So it's worth looking back at how such buy a political science paper a radical idea first got translated into action, and what made it work. According to William Reilly, then EPA administrator, Bush wanted to soothe Canada's bruised feelings.