Green debates

When it comes to global warming, we have come a long way. The last president we elected, George W. Bush, never took global warming seriously. Going into this presidential election, the three remaining candidates all believe global warming is a serious threat and have plans to deal with it. \nI can only hope the days of people trying to debunk global warming with junk science have come to an end. Any time someone tells you the name of some “reputable” scientist who argues global warming isn’t occurring, do some research. You will likely find an amazing correlation between those who deny global warming, those who endorse intelligent design, and, in some of the more amusing cases, those who supported the tobacco companies in the 1980s and 1990s. \nIf things are looking up, green activists still have plenty of issues to deal with. Every day it isn’t raining here on campus, dozens of green student organizations come out of the woodwork. I can’t tell you how many times I get stopped going to class with prompts such as “Do you have a minute for the environment?” \nThe problem with these grassroots groups is that there doesn’t seem to be any kind of consensus on how global warming should be fought. When one of my friends stopped to indulge one of the eager activists, I heard little substance in the activist’s response. This person only spoke of past task forces, emissions benchmarks and how other universities had signed similar pledges. \nI didn’t hear anything about how such benchmarks would be met or about how they could be met without incurring significant expenses. As someone who already pays out-of-state tuition, I wouldn’t want to bear anymore costs.\nNow that there is something of a consensus on the existence of global warming, Democrats and Republicans should focus on how they will fight it differently. To some extent, this is already happening. \nAll three candidates support cap-and-trade schemes that would use permits to cap carbon emissions. Sen. John McCain, however, only wants to cut carbon emissions 60 percent below the 1990 levels by 2050, while the Democratic candidates call for an 80 percent decrease. McCain also staunchly opposes ethanol subsidies and is supportive of nuclear power.\nSen. Barack Obama is somewhat ambiguous on nuclear power, while Sen. Hillary Clinton says she opposes it. Obama has called for a clean technologies venture capital fund, and Clinton wants to double federal investment in basic energy research.\nAs Republicans balk over costs and Democrats fight for more public spending, the debate on global warming will hardly end, nor should it. Many supposedly environmental policies, such as ethanol subsidies, do little to combat global warming. Particularly flawed regulations might do more harm than good. \nI, for one, am disappointed that none of the candidates support a carbon tax. Taxing a firm’s carbon emissions is a far simpler process than trying to maintain a carbon market. Europe’s carbon market has been far too influenced by special interests. One can only hope that any future U.S. carbon market will meet a better fate.