Is it time to put cap and trade on the back burner?
The people continue to grow more skeptical of global warmingA few weeks ago I attended HybridFest in Madison, WI. While there I experienced some of Wisconsin's coldest summer days in recorded history. Certainly, such whether isn't proof that global warming isn't real, but it does cause pause, especially for those already skeptical of CO2 emissions and their effect upon global warming.
And, as the economy continues to struggle, more polls seem to indicate that public support for fighting global warming is declining. This simply isn't an issue that is going to unite the people into a positive, forward-thinking movement, at least not today.
Besides, what's the rush to cap and trade legislation? Other countries that have been more progressive on CO2 limits are largely failing to meet their emissions requirements. Might it not be time to think outside of the box?
For instance, foreign oil dependence is an issue that resonates much more with the people. Of course, that doesn't mean the people are willing to be taxed more to fight such dependence. Nonetheless, it is an issue that is a far easier to sell to the American public. More important, a serious declaration of war against foreign oil dependence could have a huge effect on CO2 emissions, on igniting innovations in efficient, aka green, technology in a package the people just might buy.
Ultimately, can America really move forward by forcing Americans to act against their beliefs? Might it not be worth rallying America around an issue in which most Americans can believe?
Labels: cap and trade, Foreign Oil Dependency, global warming
posted by Dahcredyns at
8:33 AM
11 Comments:
Greenhouse gas induced climate change could actually create cooler temperatures in some regions of the Earth. However, the core of the problem is that the polar ice caps are melting and sea levels are rising. If we somehow managed to melt all of the ice in the polar ice caps (which has happened before in the Earths geologic past), then future generations might have to live with a legacy where there is no Florida, no Boston, no New York, no London, no Tokyo, no Bangkok, no Cambodia no Bangladesh, etc.
It wouldn't be the end of the world but just the creation of a brand new world.
That's true. And, we might end CO2 emissions to prevent such a man-made melt down, yet the earth's natural processes might force this melt down anyway.
Still, that wasn't really the angle I am going after.
Inevitably, innovation is the only path for a strong American economy, at least in my belief paradigm. That doesn't mean that efficiently using today's resources isn't important, just that innovation will be the key.
Many have argued that cap-and-trade will lead to such innovations. Perhaps.
Still, it seems to me that people cannot be moved forward only by force, only by laws and legislation. They can be nudged forward by such tools, but at some point humans must make the right decisions on their own. There must be balance between free will and the state.
Thus, I believe the solution must be developed via the people. Fighting foreign oil dependence is an issue that has a lot of resonance with the people. However, to achieve foreign oil independence inevitable requires lots of innovation, lots of efficiency and - inevitably and unintentionally - lots of CO2 reductions.
Without a surge in American innovation and efficiency, I think America is destined to become a second-rate economy.
However, selling this path toward innovation and efficiency via global warming will lead to an inefficient, partisan and expensive path forward. So, why not make the first step towards innovation and efficiency, a step built on an issue that can actually unite and motivate the people?
According to the University of Alabama – Huntsville: For the world as a whole, July was the 2nd-warmest ever recorded, the Southern Hemisphere had its 2nd-warmest month ever (compared to seasonal norms), and it was the 2nd-warmest month ever recorded in Antarctica (again compared to seasonal norms).
July's climate: Chilly USA, torrid globe
Again, this really isn't about the validity of global warming. But, I can tell you that when I was in Wisconsin, I did here conversations about global warming and the cold weather that led to questions of global warming.
Ultimately, I think most concerns of global warming and cap-and-trade have to do with money and government trust, not the weather - whether warmer or colder.
My point is is that cap-and-trade will be a contentious issue in Congress. That means, I'd bet, poorly written legislation, if any, at best. Thus, I'd expect any legislation will include not only huge sums of pork and gross inefficienies, but also numerous loopholes.
Moreover, if the people aren't supportive, the political payback could be regressive.
Ultimately, my point is that America needs a cultural revolution to address the problems facing our future. Based on the polls, I just don't see cap and trade as the catalyst.
Foreign oil dependence, I believe has legs - and consensus. Therefore, a chance.
For me the answer is very simple.
I say it depends on what the alternative is.
If there is a truly legitimate alternative that has a reasonal chance of being passed by Congress then I say "yes". Put cap and trade on the back burner.If the alternative is "nothing" or a proposal that has no hope of passing through Congress, then I say "no". Keep cap & trade on the front burner. I am a firm beliver that doing something is better than doing nothing...........
Besides....
Whether we agree on global warming, we still have "pollution" and "acid rain" problems. Those problems are very real and cannot be denied by Fox News Scientific studies...
ZenDude,
Don't you get tired of TV analysts measuring global warming by looking out their office window in New York City and checking the weather?
It's good thing those guys are not in Phoenix. We set a record this summer with over 20 days of temperatures above 110 degrees.
I'm sure glad I got solar panels installed this year.
Smurf - I'm in Tucson so I know how hot it has been this summer but yeah, people need to look at the big picture. Good for you installing solar! That is something I really want to do. I'm with you on cap and trade, until there is a better proposal than cap & trade that can get passed in congress, I will support cap & trade.
But, do you think we're at a point where quality legislation can come of cap and trade? I think cap and trade could lead to an even more bitter debate than health care.
The more complex any government program becomes the more ineffective as well. Why not just a carbon tax for instance?
Because there isn't enough pork to get the major players to bite.
Not long I ago I heard Howard Dean express his concerns over cap and trade becoming too complex and too ripe for loopholes, corruption and other inefficiencies. Ultimately, Dean would prefer a simple carbon tax.
Thus, I have to disagree that any cap-and-trade bill is a good thing. I'll take a watered down, but well written bill as something over nothing, but not a Congressional boondoggle that spends massive amounts of money, but achieves little, just so Congress can say they accomplished something.
Unfortunately, I think the later is a serious possibility based on the polls, Congressional comments, especially on the Democratic side, etc. I've heard.
The solution is to move from a fossil fuel economy to nuclear and renewable energy economy. And PHEVs will make even the most expensive carbon neutral synfuels derived from biowaste and nuclear power plants affordable.
Carbon neutral energy re-industrialization is the key to energy independence, high paying job creation, enormous economic growth and stopping global warming.
We spend up to $60 billion a year protecting the Persian Gulf oil routes, could you imagine what we could do if we spent that $60 billion a year on energy independence from the petroleum economy!
"We spend up to $60 billion a year protecting the Persian Gulf oil routes, could you imagine what we could do if we spent that $60 billion a year on energy independence from the petroleum economy!"
Couldn't agree more. Yet, I'm not sure I've ever heard a mainstream politician mention the costs of Persian Gulf shipping lanes.
Obviously, we need new energy policy. Why can't we just begin with a little honesty?
Activists of various flavors have managed to get people's shorts in a knot over enhanced greenhouse (the concept of increased atmospheric greenhouse gas availability cranking up the misnamed 'greenhouse effect' and causing catastrophic surface heating). One major problem with this hypothesis that always seems to get lost or glossed over is that there has been three times more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than required to deliver the current greenhouse effect since at least the end of the last great glaciation. There has never been a need for anthropogenic greenhouse enhancement to increase potential greenhouse warming because the atmosphere is already opaque in the relevant absorption bands in most regions (that is, there's 'competition' between overabundant GHG molecules for available outbound infrared radiation with only limited, regional potential remaining). This is why catastrophic warming scenarios generated by woeful 'climate models' are so laughable because models are programmed only with 'positive feedbacks' (even greater warming from trivial increase in absorber availability) while real world potential actually works with negative feedback (you get progressively less bang for your buck by adding more GHGs because there's insufficient suitable infrared radiation to go around). So, why the hysteria over something that physically cannot happen?
It's time to end the GW scam.
Post a Comment
<< Home