Use of Greenhouse Gas Cap & Trade Program as Way to Address Climate Change

Energy Debate
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course name & number
Professor
Due date
Introduction
Climate change is a significant issue in today’s society. It is characterized by extensive changes in the physical environment such as food insecurity, catastrophic floods, unbearable heat, and unpredictable weather patterns. Also, it is predisposed to biological system changes and changes in the viability of some businesses. Over the years, developed nations have enjoyed explosive periods of industrialization primarily fueled by fossil fuels. As a result, deforestation, large-scale agriculture, and greenhouse gas emissions have significantly risen to record levels. World environmental organizations have instituted several policies to curb this situation. One of them is the cap and trade climate policy that limits the allowable greenhouse emissions any country should produce. The approach is lauded for its tremendous capability of reducing environmental pollution while promoting economic development. Adopting various climatic changes can be risky; thus, Ontario was correct in ending the cap and trade program as it would have derailed the growth of the economy, pushed investments and jobs abroad, and made domestic production less competitive.
Arguments Supporting Ontario’s Action of Ending Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade Program
One of the reasons Ontario was right to end the cap and trade program is because it would have pushed investments and jobs overseas. According to Cicio (2019), the industrial sector, which boasts 510 billion dollars in annual sales, necessitates a market, affordable energy, and employees to succeed. However, capping the greenhouse gas emissions by this sector and imposing an additional cost would have made it impossible for the manufacturing industries to carry out their business effectively due to high operation costs. Consequently, to maintain their operations, they would opt to move their manufacturing to developing countries where the cost of energy is reduced and cheap labor is readily accessible. Thus, thousands of employees would have lost their source of livelihood while developed countries lost significant investments that would benefit their economy (Cicio, 2009).
Capping greenhouse gas and trade programs was correct as they would reduce the competitive nature of domestic production in the global economy. Productivity, according to Cicio, is the primary driving force of competition in any industry. For manufacturing companies to win, they need a significant competitive advantage over other nations (Cicio, 2009). The advantages may be in the form of a stable economy, laws that protect and encourage domestic investments, and access to affordable energy to produce all products, most of whom are energy-intensive. However, introducing the GHG cap on the manufacturing industries would have increased the cost of doing business in the country, which may not have resonated with other developing countries that may not have imposed similar caps. Additionally, sharing a world market with countries such as China utilizes world-class technology in all its operations, putting them above the rest (Cicio, 2009). Hence, an increase in energy cost would have significantly reduced the...