An nation. The result is fewer opportunities for American

An Economic View of Climate Change and RegulationThe result of a rapid transition into clean energy fuels are fewer opportunities for American workers, lower incomes, less economic growth, and higher unemployment. Higher energy pricing will result in a reduction of both production and consumption; therefore, we should use legislation to promote a slower shift towards the abandonment of carbon emitting plants to avoid causing distress to American citizens and America’s economy.  Many economists have been debating the quality of recent climate-aimed legislation, due to many models indicating the potential negative impact it may have on the nation’s economic stability. Filip Jolevski, a consultant at the World Bank Group, has a PhD in Economics and through his expertise and focus on Industrial Organization and Financial Economics states that by the end of 2023, nearly 600,000 jobs will be lost, a family of four income will drop by $1,200 per year, more than 770 manufacturing jobs per Congressional District in the United States will be lost, and “aggregate gross domestic product will decrease by $2.23 trillion.” As a result, natural gas’ prices will likely hike by more than 28 percent citing the Heritage Energy Model. Richard Faulk, an appellate lawyer in Texas addressing emerging issues in mass torts and environmental law, states that regulating CO2 emissions will result in an “unprecedented expansion of EPA authority” that will “impact virtually every economic sector and American household” and discourage economic growth. Faulk states that both large and small business growth will be affected by regulatory compliance of the “Tailoring Act” of the Clean Air Act. Brad Lubben, who received his PhD on agricultural economics at KSU and has 20 years of experience in that economics sector, stated that Recent climate change legislation introduced by the U.S. House of Rep.Representatives, Waxman-Markey, and by Kerry-Lieberman, at the U.S. Senate “would lead to a 2% reduction in the GDP by the year 2030.” Retail electric prices will likely rise from 30 to 70%, and manufacturing is supposed to drop by double digits making our manufacturing employment internationally less competitive. Companies will absorb these costs preventing hiring and new investment, or close entirely and outsource to a more market-friendly nation. The result is fewer opportunities for American workers, lower incomes, less economic growth, and higher unemployment.Documents crafted to entice a specific political base, or put American interests behind allowing for other countries to take advantage of our many economic sectors are unfair to our citizens and shouldn’t be promoted or passed. Several statements were issued by the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, regarding this matter and legislation surrounding climate affairs signed by previous administrations. President Trump released a public statement before he withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord in which he detailed his concern over its potential negative effects on the economy. He frequently cited the National Economic Research Associates (NERA) (a global economic consulting firm which applies financial principles to provide public policy feedback) when discussing the toll this document could take on employment in various industries. President Trump claimed that the Climate Accords would result in 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, including automobile jobs, and the further “decimation of vital American industries on which countless communities rely.” He stated that according to the same study, by 2040, paper, cement, iron, coal, and natural gas would be down 12, 23, 38, 86, and 31 percent respectively. The economy would lose $3 trillion in GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have “$7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.” Richard Epstein, the 12th most cited legal scholar-even by the U.S. Supreme Court-in the 20th century who has also published a variety of Journals on legal affairs and economics, wrote in his ‘Journal on Economics’ that China has been given a “free pass on the Paris Climate Accords” even though its carbon emissions have increased by 1.1 billion tons, while the United States have decreased by over 320 million tons in the past year. Epstein stresses that Americans shouldn’t be taken advantage of and be caught in the trap of a “clear double standard.” Nicolas Loris, a researcher in Heritage’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and author on energy supplies, energy prices, and other economic effects of environmental policies and regulations, shared Epstein’s view on international climate legislation. Loris states that carbon-emitting fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide 87 percent of America’s energy and have been the overwhelming supplier for over a century, and under this plan, electricity prices will increase by an average of 12 percent between 2017 and 2031 if the rulemaking is left up to the crafters of the Paris Climate Accord and 17% if it is up to the EPA. Loris claims that these increased energy prices would disproportionately affect the poorest of American families, as low-income families spend 20 cents per every dollar earned, while the median family spends about 5 cents out of every dollar on energy. Using the “Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change,” developed with support from the EPA climatologists Paul Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels, estimates show that the climate regulations will avert a meager –0.018 degree Celsius (C) of warming by the year 2100 given that the country complies to the regulations of the Paris Climate Accord.hinting at the lack of fair treatment Americans would receive given the trade-off between the pro’s and con’s listed above. The Environmental Protection Agency agrees with many of the economists listed above to a certain extent stating in one of their articles that market based approaches are well suitable in acting on carbon emitters. Top aids working for the EPA claim that United States should follow the European Union’s path in allowing for offsets, emission reduction in the place of regulation. These offsets force companies to buy land from landowners and reforest that grazing land instead of building technology. Using offsets, companies can substitute regulation with activities as stated above and many more such as improving livestock management to reduce methane emissions, investing in clean energy in developing countries, or reducing deforestation in the tropics. Getting clean energy into America is very possible and the industrialized nation Australia is a good example of that. Clean Energy Council, a not-for-profit organization that strives to develop and advocate effective policy to accelerate the development and deployment of all clean energy technologies, has observed in Australia an increase from 14.6 percent of clean energy usage to 17.3 percent in 2016, and halfway closer its Renewable Energy Target with more than 5.2 billion dollars sanctioned for over 35 energy projects to begin in 2017. As the report states, renewable energy is not only the cheapest form for energy production (compared to coal and natural gas) there, but has also provided 12,000 new jobs to its people. It is no surprise or question that climate change exists. As Gary Barr, the author of Climate Change states, there were 280 carbon dioxide molecules per million in the 1800’s and now there are 380 per million. But, the commitment and pressing issue for all developing economies should be to give their people a better standard of living, not reduce carbon emissions. Rather than completely denying current environmental policies or overly regulating businesses, American leaders should opt for a solution in which the costs and their outcomes are balanced.