Some Climate Change Questions
November 8 , 2007, Greenville News
by Steve Bruss
If global warming is a serious issue, then the United States
needs to take a serious approach to addressing it. Even if
it's not a real problem, we are well on the way to taking some
pretty serious steps toward addressing it. Everyone needs to
get on board so this policy can be shaped in a rational, measured
way that has the least harmful impact on Americans and the
nation's economy.
First the science. There's no dispute that the earth is getting
warmer. The science on that is sound. Why that's happening
is where the debate is. To say that it's being caused by human-generated
pollutants certainly sounds reasonable. To say that it's part
of a cyclical climate change also sounds reasonable. The former,
though, seems to be gaining momentum as the accepted cause.
As that momentum continues to build, there's less and less
reason to disbelieve the science. Continuing to do so will
leave the disbelievers out of the policy-making process.
Here's a test to determine where you should be on climate
change. As yourself, "Why do I not believe in climate change?" Is
it because of the narrow-minded, sky-is-falling approach that
some global warming alarmists want to use in solving the problem?
If so, that may be a greater reason to stick our hands in and
help address the concerns.
Here's the real scary part: The most popular idea to address
global warming among some presidential candidates is the so-called
carbon tax. That would require industry to pay a tax on all
greenhouse gas emissions. The theory is that companies won't
want to pay and therefore will cut down their emissions. Problem
is, such a strategy sets no goals for emissions reduction;
and, more likely, the tax will be passed on to consumers. Further,
business, always seeking to reduce costs, may well decide it's
cheaper to conduct business elsewhere. That could cost Americans'
jobs. The carbon tax is a bad idea. So are mandates on what
type of light bulbs we should use, mandates on what sorts of
cars we should drive and artificially inflated gasoline prices.
Renewable energy also is tossed about like it's a panacea.
But it's not. Research should be done, though, so one day we
can turn to renewables to provide our electricity in a much
cleaner way.
Buying carbon credits, as is done by former vice president
Al Gore, among others, might be a good idea for those who can
afford it. Then again, it could be a public relations ploy
that does nothing for the environment, makes the buyer look
good in the eyes of his constituency and makes the seller rich
for planting trees on the other side of the world that might
have been planted anyway.
So what do we do?
Steve Cochran, of the group Environmental Defense, was in our
office yesterday touting a Senate bill that proposes a cap-and-trade
system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If put in place,
this system would reduce such emissions by 63 percent by
2050. Not bad (the goal of most scientists is to reduce such
emissions by 80 percent by then). And it would do it in a
way that would encourage companies to reduce emissions through
their own innovation rather than government fiat. Industies
that can't cap their emissions would be able to buy credits
from companies that are successfully reducing emissions.
Over time, companies would have incentive to reduce their
CO2 emissions.
That's one example of a workable solution. Others may well
be on the horizon. But all of America, not just one ideology,
needs to be part of this debate.
Like I said, no one disputes that the earth is getting warmer.
Further, no one would dispute that pollution's a bad thing.
Conservatives and other global-warming-theory resisters need
to get involved in this discussion now so that a rational policy
can be brought forward. Groups like Environmental Defense --
which boasts about the number of economists it has on staff
-- can help draw conservatives into the discussion so they
can help guide some of these policy decisions.
http://news.greenvilleonline.com/blogs/bruss/
|
