Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
taken into consideration, livestock are responsible for 51 percent of
greenhouse gas emissions.)
44
Thirty-nine percent of the total that is
emitted comes from electricity generation, and 31 percent is from trans-
portation (cars and trucks 25 percent, ships 3 percent, planes 3 percent).
Industry supplies 14 percent, agriculture 8 percent, residential use 6
percent, and other sources 2 percent. It is clear that to make major reduc-
tions in our output of carbon dioxide, the most effective strategy would
be to emphasize the reduction in the use of fossil fuels in motor vehicles
and power plants—away from cars (even electric ones with multiple
passengers) and into mass transit and away from coal and into alterna-
tive energy sources. Both of these changes have started in recent years
and are continuing despite decreases in gasoline prices.
As usual, the fastest and most successful way to get industry and
individuals to change their behavior is to hit their bottom line. If the cost
to companies or people is larger than they want to or are able to bear,
their behavior will change. It is as certain as death and taxes.
Two ways have been suggested to put a price on carbon to cause
a reduction in consumption and a lowering of polluting emissions. The
more straightforward way is to tax carbon use. A set tax rate is placed
on the consumption of carbon in any form—fossil fuel, electricity,
gasoline—with the idea that raising the price will encourage industries
and individuals to consume less. The effectiveness of an increased price
of carbon on reducing use was well illustrated by the decrease in
gasoline use in 2008 as the price for a gallon rose from $1.50 to
$4.00 independent of a tax increase.
A carbon tax was proposed in Congress in 1997 but got nowhere. The
burden of such a tax would fall most heavily on coal-burning utilities and
industrial users and processors of petroleum in its various forms. It would
be no fun for long-distance trucking companies and individual car owners
either. Lobbyists for the fossil fuel industries went into high gear, and the
proposal was defeated. Any legislation in the United States that is called
a tax or is even perceived as a tax by the public has about the same chance
of getting through Congress as a fi ghting pekingese has of defeating a pit
bull. Nevertheless, in March 2009, a bill to tax carbon use directly was
submitted in the House of Representatives. It went nowhere.
The method that may be on its way through Congress to reduce
fossil fuel consumption is called cap-and-trade.
45
Under a cap-and-trade
program, the government sets a limit on the amount of pollution allowed
(carbon dioxide, methane, soot, and so forth), and polluters are sold or
given permits by the government to pollute up to that limit. Each permit
