The United States is the world’s largest producer of carbon emissions, and recent statements by President Bush and powerful business leaders indicate that they believe it is time for us to take responsibility for this, and reduce our emissions here at home. That is a significant step, but will ultimately not be enough if developing nations do not cut their emissions as well. International treaties like Kyoto aren’t the answer - they exempt many developing nations. So how do we get these countries to cut their emissions, too? I think a carbon cap, in addition to leading to needed reductions in emissions in the U.S., would lead to lower emissions worldwide as well. Here’s how:
The most significant reductions in pollution in the U.S. have all come about as a result of improved technology - catalytic converters in automobiles, smokestack scrubbers in power plants, and the like. Ultimately, better technology is how we will reduce carbon emissions as well. But developing countries simply cannot afford to develop these technologies while they grow their economies. We can - and an incentive-based carbon cap will help us do it. Once we have developed the technology to reduce carbon here, it will spread to developing countries, making even more money for innovative American companies, and leading to lower emissions all over the world.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 at 10:37 am and is filed under Alternative Energy Technology, Cap and Trade, International Environmental News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 31st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
“But developing countries simply cannot afford to develop these technologies while they grow their economies.”
Why do developing countries need to develop these ‘clean’ technologies? Did they have to develop the wheel too? They have but don’t USE the technology because they take away from the bottom line. Companies in Western nations did this before environmental regulations forced them to develop the tech. Now it exists everywhere and is required, here.
Exists there? Yes.
Required there? Not so much.
February 1st, 2007 at 12:15 am
You brainwashed conservative (and liberal) schnookies cannot even fathom the extent to which you are deceived. Free energy exists and has since tesla discovered it 100 years ago! Cold fusion exists as well since fleishman and pons prooved it in 1989! Look up Tom Beardon and eugene mallove for a start. Then get your heads out of your arse and realize that nothing is as it seems.
February 1st, 2007 at 4:27 am
I am very disappointed in the president (again) for his caving in to the co2 propaganda. Is this another effort at being bi-partisan like No Child Left Behind? Is he now an internationalist willing to subvert our interests for everybody else? Whit Ayres talks about pollution reduction technology. Catalytic converters and scrubbers certainly have reduced pollution considerably, but thats not good enough for the environmentalists. So we now have gone way beyond catalytic converters at ever spiralling costs to squeeze the last pollutant out our exhaust. What if this mnoney could be put into alternative energy instead of trying to salvage gasoline as a fuel? Global warming is a buch of hype. The real problem now is our dependence on hostile peoples for our energy.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:11 pm
A carbon-based cap may or may not help us develop lower-carbon emitting technologies. Even though Europe capped their carbon emissions by agreeing to binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, it hasn’t helped them reduce their carbon dioxide emissions (since 2000, co2 emission in the EU are increasing faster than in the US) nor has it helped them produce low-CO2 technologies.
What’s the point of a cap? If we cap our carbon emissions our economy will suffer. This means less income and fewer jobs Americans. Energy intensive will continue to leave the U.S. The US already had the highest natural gas prices in the world, which makes it harder the companies that use natural-gas, such as fertilizer and plastic makers, to stay in business in the United States. A cap will only increase the price of natural gas.
A cap may have the intended benefits, but at what cost?
February 2nd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
“You brainwashed conservative (and liberal) schnookies cannot even fathom the extent to which you are deceived. Free energy exists and has since tesla discovered it 100 years ago! Cold fusion exists as well since fleishman and pons prooved it in 1989! Look up Tom Beardon and eugene mallove for a start. Then get your heads out of your arse and realize that nothing is as it seems.”
If free energy and cold fusion really exist, Mr. Tesla, how come nobody produces it?
And besides, most people (liberal or otherwise) have their heads on the top of their bodies, not in their buttocks.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Please tell me why we need to fear global warming. In Pa., we are enjoying milder winters, which save on home heating oil and reduce traffic accidents.
If your shore house will some day flood, then sell it.
If you live on Long Island, or in Delaware, move. You prolly have a few decades to get your crap together, so what again is to fear ?
If you need to fear something, fear the religion of blood which is hell bent on converting every lunatic in your town to spend the rest of his life murdering the rest of you, or you could fear Avian flu and the plethra of viruses and bacteria bent on ending your live before your hero wins the Daytona 500. Or, you could fear the democrat party who are a bunch of criminals who realize they can control the courts and the FBI as they once did, and steal everything and live to laugh about it. Think about it, groups of parasites, criminals, crime families, traitors, people who have made millions, even billions doing nothing, but taking advantage of opportunity and covering their tracks ad nauseum, being supported by masses of koolaid drinking, non-thinking, brainless gnomes. The same democrats are talking about control of the amount of $ a CEO makes, but no mention of how much a basketball player makes, or an actor.
Have you read the Constitution lately ?
Who are these people ?
February 3rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
The global warming hype/propaganda is nothing more then another leftist attempt at redistribution of wealth.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Daniel, what you said about the EU emissions rising faster then the US is very interesting, where did you read this? I would like to learn more.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:05 am
i find it hard to believe that the US is the largest producer of CO2. what about india, china and let’s not forget iran [where thousands die every month due to air pollution]….
is this really a scientific fact or the latest fad-fear?
on a snarky note…perhaps if speaker pelosi shut her big trap once in awhile the carbon dioxide levels would fall………..
we can dream anyway……..
February 13th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
When John Travolta gives up his “gas guzzling” 707 and Gulf Stream III, I’ll worry about how much I am personally “warming” the environment.
When Al Gore explains how the USofA is responsible for Mars’ global warming, I’ll worry about how much I am personally “warming” Mars’ environment.
Global warming is a smoke screen for bigger government and additional State and Federal regulations which will erode our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. The ‘Left’ has made global warming an emotional issue and attacks dissenters with a vengeance. Instead of promoting scientific discussion, they effectively impede it by attacking the scientists who disagree with the “official” party ideology. As far as the Left is concerned, the issue of global warming has been resolved and no analytical, rational proof to the contrary will persuade them to abandon their dogma.
The Leftists, Liberals, Democrats have determined the “enemy” of the people to be “the people.” And they have named themselves as the “redeemer” and their doctrine as the only legally acceptable authority.