Pros And Cons Of The Cap And Trade System

The cap and trade system secures that if a company were to release too much sulfur dioxide there would be consequences for it. The Environmental Defense Fund 2015, informs the people that is has many positive sides to it. The cap prevents billions of carbon dioxide chemicals from being released into the air, it also explains, “The cap should limit emissions economy-wide, covering electric power generation, natural gas, transportation, and large manufacturers.” It would benefit the economy and would spend less money on all the problems associated with too much carbon dioxide. With cap and trade, every company would plan ahead and be able to reduce how much carbon dioxide is released into the air. Meaning, that each year, there would be fewer

Electricity prices would rise, companies and families would have to pay a lot more for food because of the rising prices. Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency ruling would cause many Americans to lose their jobs, everything would become more expensive. Opponents of the environmental laws claim that EPA would harm the entire country as a whole. The majority of Americans would suffer for it and bring more problems to the American economy. An analysis done by Energy Ventures clearly explains that the majority of the American population between the years 2022 and 2030 would pay an additions 214 billion dollars more for electrical usage. There are many governors that oppose EPA such as the governor of Utah Gary Herbert 2015, who said, “The proposal could significantly raise electricity prices harming the competitiveness of Utah’s industry and economy. Consumers will face higher utility costs, disproportionately affecting lower-income and rural families.” Others states such as North Carolina would also suffer

The study also showed that the state would lose 32,120 jobs by 2030. The Environmental Protection Agency fails to realize that many states depend on coal and natural gases. Millions of families in states like Arizona, North Carolina, Utah, Ohio, Texas and many would suffer immensely. The CountOnCoal 2014 website states, “Lawmakers across America recognize that we, as a society, consume a lot of electricity. To meet these needs, we need a diverse portfolio of energy sources including coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables. It is this diversity in fuel sources that keeps our electricity costs low and our reliability and stability high. A proposed rule from the EPA would effectively eliminate coal from this equation, thereby making our energy sources less diverse.” Many families depend on these industries to survive, cutting back on what coal mines produce and what certain facets produce would put the economy down. Millions of families in the majority of states would go into financial trouble. EPA takes income, comfortability and stability from a home. These are things that should never lack, or be put in jeopardy. President Obama has been trying to figure out ways to create more jobs and stabilize the economy but with EPA it completely destroys millions. In a class lecture by Professor Pecorella 2015 on public