LSP Environmental Studies Community Event Reports

On Monday, September 15th, I attended a lecture on global warming from Jim Marston, the Attorney General in the Environmental Division of Texas, in the NYU School of Law. This event was hosted in the Greenberg Lounge at Vanderbilt Hall from 6:00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m. It was sponsored by the Environmental Law Society. It was an educational event aimed mainly for NYU graduate law students. Jim Marston is a senior attorney and the Executive Director of Environmental Health Funds in Texas. He sets the environmental policy in Texas by working on issues such air pollution, water quality, and energy. He also works with policy lawmakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and electric power plants, which was the main topic of his lecture on September 15th.
The lecture was very informative and interesting. Throughout the lecture, Jim Marston made a lot of jokes, most of them relating to the topic. Everyone who attended seemed to enjoy the lecture. His lecture addressed the ways in which we can solve global warming. He first began his lecture by explaining the somewhat new policy, enacted in 2006, Cap and Trade. He asked if we knew exactly what it was and what it guidelines were, but surprisingly, quite a number of us did not. Basically, Cap and Trade is a policy aimed towards reducing greenhouse gases (particularly from big firms, companies, and plants) and carbon dioxide in the most manageable way in terms of the economy. Marston stated that the “cap” part, which allows companies to buy a permit for every ton of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases it emits into the atmosphere, is mandatory. This is one way of limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that companies emit. As for the “trade” part of the policy, compan
ies that would not be able to get these permits easily and for a cheap price can purchase them from the other companies, the ones that can purchase these permits easily. This is perfect for the companies that already have more than enough permits to emit their carbon dioxide, because they can make a profit by selling it to other companies in desperate need of permits. Marston stated that this “trade” part is optional. He also stated that both presidential candidates are in favor of Cap and Trade. This policy requires every plant to make a reduction.
Marston then continued his lecture with the different opinions and types of analysis from economists, environmentalists, and government officials. Apparently, the law says we need to make reductions, specifically reductions of eighty percent. We also need to get the industry making money and figure out how to make reductions. Some economists argue for carbon taxes, taxes on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. However, these carbon taxes would raise prices. Initally, economists said that we would not be able to solve global warming. They thought that it would cost too much to solve global warming, and that people would need to drive in different cars. However, the government stated that the solution would make a minor impact on the economy. Economists’ main fears are that the amount of needed to solve global warming would hurt our economy drastically. Marston proved in his lecture that this view is wrong.
Marston addressed this assertion by first stating that “small steps make a difference.” A little difference does matter and it will affect the atmosphere. He stated that a study showed that fourty pecent of reductions we need by 2050 can be done with our existing technology and also save us money. He stated that when Americans are given a choice, we could easily reach an eighty percent reduction in driving by simply biking, walking, or taking the train to work or school. He suggested that we should tie a campaign about obesity and health to environmental issues. Afterall, most of the environmental issues lead to diseases and health problems for humans. Marston stressed the importance of the need to go from high technology to clean technology. Marston’s argument showed that economists should not ways of solving global warming.
After Marston’s lecture was a Question and Answer session. One woman asked what is so great about Cap and Trade because she was skeptical since in the past there was much more regulation and energy efficiency. Marston answered that the main advantage is certainty. Cap is a guarentee, a “no matter what.” Cap gives credit to big companies and by 2020, there will be an increase in reductions of greenhouse gases from our current four percent to a twenty percent. Marston admitted that the downside is that it does not always work especially since we are not in the future yet. However, the more that people do in an early time, the more that gets done. Also, cap and trade would definitely work for the electricity sector. If this ever failed, there is always the alternative and back-up plan of carbon taxes. The next question of debate after this was from a man who pointed out that China and India have not signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. Marston answered, “Well, they
create their own problems.“ China and India’s failure to comply with the Protocol should not encourage failure in our own compliance.
Marston ended his lecture by stating that rich, industrial nations cause the problems, along with consumers. We cannot solve global warming by consumer regulation alone, but we cannot solve global warming without consumer regulation, as well. Our government has tried to educate people to reduce air pollution for about 30 or more years, but trying to tell people to help in reducing these problems for altruistic reasons and for future generations has been a failure. Marston stated the sad fact that we need an incentive just to get people to care about our environment. One possible way is by rewarding people for fuel efficiency. In conclusion, for the present moment, our best solutions to global warming are the Cap and Trade Policy and consumer regulation along with rewards for consumers. Marston stated that we can solve other problems simultaneously if we tackle global warming smartly.
I liked this event because it was so informative. I did not even know there were attorneys for environmental law before hearing about this event. I do think becoming an attorney for environmental law is something I would like to do in the future. Listening to Jim Marston speak showed me how passionate he was over the issue. He was very adamant about taking action in solving global warming. I can see myself doing something to better the environment, as well. I felt like he was a perfect example of people trying to make the world better. The event definitely informed me, as well as everyone who attended. I found it extremely worthwhile, because now I can add to my list my possible careers. The one thing I found very beneficial was learning about cap and trade. After attending this lecture, I realized that Cap and Trade is an important topic in today’s politics and I did not even know about it. So, not only did I gain knowledge of the way economists have thought, but I also learned one aspect of today's
debate and politics.