Vu 1

Henry Vu
Jaya Dubey
Writing 39C
3 June 2014
Air Pollution Solution: Reducing CO
2
Emissions
The debate on climate change ought not to be whether or not it exists. Its what we
should do about it. John Olivers words becomes more and more apparent as the danger of
climate change becomes more and more apparent. Just 2 years ago in 2012 the United States
experienced its hottest recorded year with over 350 record high temperatures being broken. This
rise in temperature led to higher instances of extreme weather such as droughts, wildfires, floods,
and storms which ended up costing over $100 billion in damages and countless lives (President
Obamas). Even in the face of these conditions, a shocking 25% of Americans do not believe
in climate change with another 36% feeling mixed about the issue.
Out of all the climate pollutants that contribute to climate change, carbon dioxide (CO
2
)
is the biggest contributor making up 82% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 - or over 5,000
tons of carbon dioxide emitted. There are multiple sources of carbon dioxide emissions as
shown in figure 1. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the largest of these
sources is the production of electricity which makes up 38% of CO
2
emissions through the
process of burning fossil fuels such as coal. Another 32% of carbon dioxide emissions comes
from transportation which includes highways, airports, and railroads. The 14% of carbon
dioxide emissions that comes from industries is also due to the processes that require the burning
of fossil fuels. Residential and commercial refers to multiple sources of emissions such as
homes and stores. The last 6% refers to agricultural practices that affect the carbon in the soil
Vu 2
which ultimately impacts the amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere (Carbon Dioxide
Emissions). On top of multitude of sources of CO
2

emissions, carbon dioxide also has a long lifespan.
As shown in figure 2, over a quarter of carbon
dioxide can remain after a century of decay
(Blakemore). With a long lifespan and large
amounts of emissions, carbon dioxide will only
become a larger problem as the years go by.
Out of the proposed solutions to air pollution,
including H.R. 1943 which aims to reduce short-
lived climate pollutants, the best possible solution at
the moment is S. 332 which is also known as the Climate Protection Act of 2013. Presented by
liberal senators Bernard Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer on February 14 of 2013, the bill
aims to ultimately reduce the amount
of carbon pollution in the air and
support the use of clean energy. This
will be done by imposing a variant of
the carbon tax which includes a
carbon pollution fee on producers of
carbon polluting substances and a
carbon equivalency fee on imported
carbon pollution-intensive goods.
Vu 3
More specifically, this creates a tax of $20 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions, and the tax
would rise by 5.6% every year. The money generated by the tax would then be used three
different ways. 60% of the money will be rebated back to legal U.S. residents which makes the
bill more beneficial to the average voter. 25% of the money will go to lower the countrys
deficit. The last 15% of the money will go towards research on cleaner forms of energy and its
implementation (U.S. Senate). With a few adjustments, this bill is cost-beneficial, would
significantly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions, and would be somewhat feasible.
One of the strong points of the Climate Protection Act is that it is cost-beneficial.
Opponents of the bill have pointed out that the implementation of a carbon tax would negatively
impact the economy. This is confirmed by a report done by the Congressional Budget Office on
the effects of a carbon tax which stated that carbon taxes usually increase the price of goods and
services that produce high levels of carbon dioxide emissions such as electricity and
transportation. It goes on to say that these higher prices lowers the value of the average
consumers dollar. However, the report also states that a $20 per ton of carbon dioxide
emissions with an annual rise of 5.6% would generate almost $1.2 trillion within the next 10
years (Dinan 1). Also, as energy economics expert Richard Caperton has pointed out, the
Climate Protection Acts rebate system follows the same model as Alaskas oil dividend as to
ensure that residents are not too affected by the tax. That would mean that within the first
decade that this bill is enacted, over $700 billion will be refunded back to residents which helps
offset some of the negative economic impact
Another strong point of this bill is that it has the potential to decrease CO
2
throughout the
United States within the next decade. The way the bill is currently written, the goal is to
ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% of 2005 levels by the year 2050. Though
Vu 4
the goal seems incredibly difficult to reach, this bill is expected to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by 12% within the next decade which certainly helps. Still, the 12% reduction is still
far from the ideal goal of an 80% reduction by 2050. However, if the initial amount of $20 per
ton of CO
2
emissions is changed to a higher $30 or $35 per ton of CO
2
, then carbon dioxide
emissions can be lowered by 30% instead of the currently estimated 12% (Climate
Protection). With this change, the impact that this bill has on carbon dioxide emissions will
greatly increase, and the end goal of an 80% reduction by 2050 is much more plausible.
Finally, although the bill is currently not likely to pass, making an adjustment to the bill
will make it much more feasible. Currently, the Climate Protection Act has only a 6% chance of
being enacted as estimated by govtrack.us. Despite being introduced well over a year ago, this
year has not even made it past committee yet and will probably not become a law in this
Congress. Even if it did make it to the House of Representatives, the bill has practically no
chance of getting past that stage. As shown in figure 3, the Republican party, represented by the
red dots, currently holds majority in the House of Representatives, and the House Republican
leader has promised that they will block any policy that generates revenue (Handley). However,
as stated in the preceding paragraph, the Climate Protection Act can benefit from additional
changes. In this case, the bill is currently rejected by Republicans as a carbon tax is a more
liberal approach to solving climate change while Republicans tend to be more conservative.
Therefore, the bill would benefit from a change where citizens will receive 100% of the revenue
generated as opposed to the current proposed 60%. In this way, any revenue generated by the
carbon tax will go straight back to residents instead of to other government programs which
makes it more appealing to conservative thinkers as stated by the Citizens Climate Lobby. On
the other hand, such a change would rid the bill of other benefits such as decreasing the national
Vu 5
deficit and funding clean energy programs. However, the bill would still be able to reduce the
amount of carbon dioxide emissions while making it more favorable towards the average voter.
There are multiple other solutions that have been suggested to lower the amount of
greenhouse gases but are not as effective as the
Climate Protection Act. The most ideal of
these solutions is to completely end the use of
fossil fuels. This solution is technically the
most effective solution to reduce amount of
greenhouse gases as the burning of fossil fuels
make up over 90% of greenhouse gas
emissions in the United States (Biello). However, with coal power plants producing about 50%
of the United States electricity and crude oil fueling a majority of transportation, such a solution
is not feasible whatsoever as so much of the average citizens lifestyle revolves around the use
of fossil fuels. Another solution is to improve U.S. infrastructure. Inefficient building design
can increase CO
2
emissions simply by not regulating heat efficiently. Also, poorly made roads
make vehicles less efficient in fuel use which raise the amount of fossil fuel consumptions.
Therefore, a nation-wide project to improve roads and make buildings better at regulating
temperature can cut down on greenhouse gas emissions (Biello). However, as with the other
solution, this plan is not feasible. Furthermore, such a plan would require large amounts of
cement which contributes to the amount of greenhouse gases.
The Climate Protection Act of 2013 has the potential to greatly impact the levels of CO
2

emissions in the United States in the span of a decade through the use of a carbon tax. At the
moment, the bill is not receiving a lot of support from the members of Congress and seems to be
Vu 6
very liberal, gaining little to no support from conservative Republicans. Therefore, in order for
this bill to have a higher chance of passing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it is necessary
that people contact local congress members to show support for this bill. It is also necessary for
this bill to be modified in such a way that it would appeal to conservative congress members as
well by having a 100% rebate rate. At the very least, people need to be more mindful of their
personal carbon footprints. This can be as simple as using less electricity by turning off lights
and devices or walking and biking instead of driving a car. If the possibility of a bigger,
nationwide solution is slim, then taking a smaller step towards a personal solution would be the
next best thing.



Vu 7

Works Cited
Biello, David. "10 Solutions for Climate Change." Scientific American. Scientific American Inc.,
6 Nov. 2007. Web. 02 June 2014.
Blakemore, Bill. "Whos Most to Blame for Global Warming?" ABC News. ABC News
Network, 22 July 2012. Web. 29 May 2014.
Caperton, Richard. "The Newly Proposed Carbon Tax Will Fight Global Warming, Protect Low-
Income Americans And Reduce The Deficit." ClimateProgress. ThinkProgress, 14 Feb.
2013. Web. 29 May 2014.
"Carbon Dioxide Emissions." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 17 Apr. 2014. Web. 1
June 2014.
"Climate Protection Act, S.332." Citizens Climate Lobby. Citizens Climate Lobby, 6 Apr. 2013.
Web. 28 May 2014.
Dinan, Terry, et al. Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment.
Congressional Budget Office. Congress of the United States, May 2013. Web. 30 May
2014.
Fung, Katherine. "John Oliver & Bill Nye School Climate Change Skeptics On 'Last Week
Tonight'" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 May 2014. Web. 30 May
2014.
Handley, James. "Sanders-Boxer Set Gold Standard But Write Off Fiscal Potential of Carbon
Tax." Carbon Tax Center. Carbon Tax Center, 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 28 May 2014.
Hymas, Lisa. "Sanders and Boxer Introduce 'fee and Dividend' Climate Bill; Greens Tickled
Pink." Grist. Grist Magazine, Inc., 15 Feb. 2013. Web. 26 May 2014.
Vu 8
Lehr, Jay, Steve Stanek, Mischa Popoff, John McAdams, Alan Caruba, Jonathan H. Adler, James
DeLong, and Walter Starck. "Heartland Institute Experts React to Carbon Tax Bill in
U.S. Senate." The Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute, 14 Feb. 2013. Web. 28
May 2014.
"President Obama's Plan to Fight Climate Change." The White House. The White House, 25
June 2013. Web. 30 May 2014.
Saad, Lydia. "One in Four in U.S. Are Solidly Skeptical of Global Warming."Gallup Politics.
Gallup, Inc., 22 Apr. 2014. Web. 29 May 2014.
United States. Cong. Senate. Climate Protection Act of 2013. 14 Feb. 2013. 113th Cong.
Senate Bill 332. Web. 29 May 2014.