Monday, June 29, 2009

Is Cap and Trade worth it?

I will concede that reducing CO2 emissions is a laudable goal. While most scientists do agree that CO2 emissions have an impact, there is still disagreement on the extent of that impact. Remember all that panic over Y2K? You really didn't what was going to happen until it happened. On January 1, 2000, most of us either breathed a sigh of relief or said "I told you so!" And there were some that were disappointed that the world didn't come to an end. There were some minor problems associated with Y2K, but it wasn't as devastating as many had feared.

Like a millennium prophet, Al Gore will have the privilege of getting to see first hand if he is right. Because CO2 levels will go up, and it is beyond the power of Congress to stop it. If it costs too much for a company to emit CO2 in the US, they will simply move elsewhere. As China, India, and other countries start to develop, there will be a massive increase in CO2.

If the worst case predictions are correct, then it won't matter what we do since we're all doomed anyway. On the other hand, if conservative talk show hosts are right, then we have nothing to worry about. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the truth is somewhere in between. Even without human activity, the climate still changes from year to year, century to century, and eon to eon.

So here are my predictions:
1. Congress will either repeal "Cap and Trade" or grant exemptions to "vital" industries.
2. The climate will change, and we will adapt.
I feel rather confident about the second prediction, since there won't be anyone around to tell me that I was wrong.

What should the government do then? Everyone, including the government, should look into ways to reduce consumption of resources. Maybe I should start riding a bike to work, and maybe some wasteful government programs should be cut.

1 comment:

Daddy said...

Those 'folks' pitching us with this global warning thingy, cannot in good consciousness be called scientists.
Their models, that they base their conclusions on, are faulty at the basic presumption, selected to get
desired results, and therefore are not science but profiteering. And there are no facts substantiating their claims, only 'theories'.

That does not imply that there are no other environment dangers. On the contrary. There are very many serious environment dangers, both man made and natural. However CO2 effect if any is relatively benign. CO2 if good food for crops and trees.

And yes I do have my dated but still a degree in Atmospheric Science.