Obama's $3.8T Budget Includes Cap-And-Trade Placeholder
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/02/01/01greenwire-obamas-38t-budget-includes-cap-and-trade-placeh-7116.html?pagewanted=1&%2339&sq=obama&st=cse&%2359;s environmental policy&scp=2
“Budgeting is highly political, but it is not the same thing as politics in general. It represents a special corner of politics, with many of its own characteristics” (Rubin, 1993). Executive budget reflects the president’s willingness with the way of allocate the resources. Fortunately, Congress allows the president Obama to spend $ 3.8 trillion to enforce the environmental policy as the president planed for 2011 fiscal year budget. Vig (2009) indicates that “budget priorities” (p. 87) is one of the methods to show the president’s administrative style. The increasing budget on the environmental policy shows how strongly Obama administration focuses on this agenda, while George W. Bush who focused on economic rather than environment, cut the EPA’s budget and environmental programs. (Vig, 2009).
More specifically, President Obama guides his environmental policy as a “comprehensive market-based climate change policy,” when he allocates $3.8 trillion to the programs. According to the article, Obama focuses on clean energy project, thus Obama’s budget would be distributed to multiple agencies such as U.S. EPA, The Energy Department, the State Department, and so forth to achieve his goal. That is, most of the budget would spend to develop technologies and make a rule or regulations to implement clean energy.
I like the way of Obama to enforce the market-based cap-and -trade policy. I think that one of the reasons why the environmental policy failed in the past was the predecessor focused one side, economy or environment. Or the former president could not find the solution to integrate the economy and the environment protection. They used Zero-Sum game strategy asking someone's sacrifice, while Obama uses the win-win game strategy to satisfy all of the players.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Unfortunately the budget is extremely political and is one of the largest factors in driving the direction of policy. However, we have come to a consensus about environmental issues, that is the first step. With that said though, as you can witness in the Vig readings, this funding tends to swing pending on the party in power. The "odd man or men out" are the American people and those given the task and duty to enforce regulations and standards within the EPA.
ReplyDeleteObama is doing a good job about sending the message that we are taking proactive measures to reduce greenhouse gases, stabilize our economy by growth in green jobs, and influence other powerful nations to do so as well. However, as Americans we always seem somewhat impatient when it comes to actually witnessing these types of changes.
What do you think is realistic in terms of proper green energy use, and the amount we should use of renewable energy without expending more jobs within other areas (natural gas, petroleum)? Do you think there will ever be a unified approach taken by both parties? What would your message be to the people of America and other comparative nations regarding our transition to "green jobs"?
Hi~ thanks for the acrticle.
ReplyDeleteIf seeing in the part of the comprehensive market-based climate change, Obama administration seems to simultaneously conduct the market-oriented approach for competition as well as traditional regulation or intervention to the market. He seems to pursue the synthetization of the market competition and government intervention as environmental policy tool. Traditional command and control way of the past would be changed into economic incentive method because in modern society, the perception level of interest groups and the public is improved for them to simultaneously require public health, environmental quality, economic development, and so on.
Hi Blake,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment and asking.
To be honest, your question is so difficult to answer. If you don’t mind, I would like to tell you what I think about the current situation of the United States, very personally and subjectively. First of all, I think the president Obama points out exactly the reason why the Unites States should enforce the environmental policy in the Units of States Representatives. He is going to integrate the economic and the environmental policy. As Vig mentioned somewhere in the text book, I believe that the economic crisis could be the opportunity to strength the environmental policy because the government could create new jobs and stimulate the industries to achieve the goal of clean energy as well as economic recovery. It is true that the government will spend lots of money to do that in a short-term, but I think, it will be the investment for the USA’s future. The United States could see the long-term strategy. Somebody says that “You cannot get the beautiful things without sacrificing.” Even if there is not scientific consensus or political consensus, using clean energy is the tendency of the worldwide. Other developed countries have been investing the technologies in order to reduce global warming, and they do not allow the products which are not satisfied the standard level of emission, to import. That is, the United States would lose their business partners through the worldwide, if the USA stays here without any changes. About the politics, I don’t know. I am afraid to say that the expectation of a unified approach in politics would be too ideal. I think that if the Obama Administration wants to enforce the environmental policy, it should attract the public’s interest first, and should be supported by them, because eventually the representatives is going to follow the public’s willingness.
This is honestly what I think about the environmental policy of the United States. Thanks.