Environment

As Barack Obama embarks on his first trip to Beijing as president -- and with less than a month to go before the Copenhagen climate change summit -- it's worth asking: Is China's rapid economic growth ravaging the environment? Or are that nation's massive investments in green technology an environmental lifeline -- not to mention a huge headstart in a sector that could drive the economy of the 21st century?

New America Foundation Schwartz Fellow Christina Larson will be discussing these questions Tuesday, Nov. 17, in this week's New America Foundation / Politico live web chat.

Update: This chat has concluded, but a full transcript is archived below.

* * *

Past Chats

Previous New America/Politico chats have their full transcripts archived:

The unofficial color of the new millenium is beginning to evoke less images of Kermit the Frog, and more impressions of the lively discourse on environmental sustainability.

What with "green" on everyone's tongues, it was only a matter of time before the question of environmentally-friendly practices arose in the microfinance realm.  Green Microfinance, an organization devoted to harnessing the power of renewable energy to microfinance, is facilitating this week's microLINKS Speaker's Corner on Microfinance and Climate Change, which poses three questions to its participants:

• What is the impact of microenterprise and microfinance clients on the natural environment?  
• How can MFIs promote environmental sustainability while still meeting their "core mission" of reducing poverty?
• What is the role of donors and investors in ensuring environmental sustainability of an MFI and their clients?
  

These issues are important, but one can't help but wonder if there's a fourth question that also needs to be asked: What can microfinance do to help protect livelihoods threatened by climate change?

Last night, in the few minutes we weren’t talking about the financial crisis and the impending bailout, President Clinton waxed political on the potential for energy investment in the United States.  According to the President, the near-certain reality of approving legislation liberalizing off-shore drilling should be seen as a political opportunity for progressives interested in sustainable environment and combating climate change. But if we’re going to “give” drilling to the right, the left should negotiate hard for the environment, including:

Tax systems get used for a lot more than raising revenue for the government. They are also often used to help change behavior and to make prices reflect costs of "negative externalities." If you want to discourage something, raise the tax on it.  If you want to encourage something, lower the tax or offer a special deduction or tax credit.

One activity we want to discourage today is greenhouse gas emissions, such as CO2 from burning fossil fuels - like the gas in your car. So, despite some elected officials calling for ways to lower the cost of gasoline, we should really be looking to increase the cost because:

1. The higher cost will encourage people to drive less or find other ways to use less gasoline.
2. What we pay for gas at the pump is not the true cost. When we drive and burn gasoline, we cause air pollution, create GHG emissions that contribute to global warming, wear out roads, and cause congestion. These activities have costs - such as cleaning the air or refurbishing roads. When that cost is not included in the price we pay, the government doesn't get the money needed to deal with the problems - the negative externalities of driving.

Beijing seems to have the idea right. It was reported in several news outlets that on August 13, Beijing announced that there would be a much higher sales tax on large cars and a lower tax on smaller cars (see abcnews.go.com)