'Pay the Piper': Article Summary

The article ‘Pay the Piper’ was published on Economist.com on the 10th of November, 2008. The link to this article is: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12583452
This article deals with Obama’s ambitious plans in regard to improving America’s and, as a result, the World’s environment, though these face certain difficulties. These plans include the goal to, by 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below the rates of 1990, as well as the $150 billion energy overhaul plan. However, three factors also play a role in the future execution of these plans and these are the Congress, the economic crisis as well as the public and their interests.
One would think that since the Democrats are the majority in both houses of congress, Obama would have little difficulty in, for example, passing environmentally friendly bills or in receiving the funding for his projects. However, the Republicans retain enough power to put an indefinite veto on certain bills. In addition, the newly elected democrats have a more moderate stance, rather than a liberal one. The second factor that is hindering Obama’s environmental initiative is the recent economic crisis. Though it is a popular belief that investing heavily into the environmental market will also stabilize the economy, little proof supports this thesis. Big spending to impact America’s rate of emissions or increasing the price of fossil fuels are two options that both would negatively affect the economy or the political image. Therefore it would be easier to tackle one obstacle at a time, starting with the economic crisis. Finally, the economic crisis caused a further decrease in public interest for the environment. The publics worry about global warming is overshadowed by their demand for lower fuel prices.
The best option, it is suggested, is to force polluters to pay for the damage they inflict; however, this repercussion would now extend to the entire American population, not only the large corporations. This contradicts the message that politicians are trying to send; resolving the environmental issue would also relieve the economic situation. Well, you can’t have everything.