Committee on global warming?

[mr_genius]

The interesting thing about CO2 is that a cap and trade type system would almost certainly work, and work well, if it were set up globally. A global treaty, say signed in a Japanese city, sets up a system where each country is given a goal to reach in terms of decrease in CO2 output compared to today, and countries which decrease faster than the current rate wind up turning a profit by selling their credits to countries that decrease more slowly. That sort of system doesn't work for some pollutants, like Mercury, that hang around in one spot, but because CO2 is so well mixed in the atmosphere, I think it would actually be fairly effective if we could get the major powers in the world to join in (and the developing world would actually have motivation to join as well, because they'd have the opportunity to turn a profit just by cleaning up)

 

 

sounds good to me. a t-shirt at walmart might be $10 instead of $3.50, but i'm ok with that.

 

remember though, many countries will see this as another attempt as the United States imposing their will on other countries. may cause resentment.

 

also, just blaming the United States for other countries pollution is fairly weak. countries need to take responsibility for their own problems. believe it or not, the United States is not the source of all evil in the universe.

Edited January 19, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

sounds good to me. a t-shirt at walmart might be $10 instead of $3.50, but i'm ok with that.

 

remember though, many countries will see this as another attempt as the 'evil' United States imposing their will on other countries. may cause resentment.

But, it would also involve the U.S. actually signing a treaty presumably, which would show the U.S. actually reaching out to the rest of the world to do something for the good of the world, for the first time in a long time.

[Jenksismyhero]

4. I don't get the argument that its important, but we'll deride Pelosi's committee. I mean, will it actually achieve anything? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't see how you can say you are in favor of doing something about it, but aren't in favor of the House starting work on it.

 

1. It's the government

 

2. Any recommendations won't be taken seriously (9/11 Commission what?)

 

3. It's the government

 

4. It's become too political. It's posturing. It's the Dems saying 'look at us, unlike those straight-laced money-hungry fascist pig Republicans, we care about the environment, so we're gonna create this panel to look into it.'

 

5. It's the government

 

6. The scientific community, on its own, should have ample studies/reports for Congress to use to act. A meeting or two, sure, I'll go for that. A full-fledged committee that will take time and money away from more pressing needs? A waste.

 

7. It's the government.

Edited January 19, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[mr_genius]

But, it would also involve the U.S. actually signing a treaty presumably, which would show the U.S. actually reaching out to the rest of the world to do something for the good of the world, for the first time in a long time.

 

yea, but often times countries sign onto things like this with no intention of following through. but yea, if it was a global effort it would work.

[Balta1701]

2. Any recommendations won't be taken seriously (9/11 Commission what?)

The Dems finally just passed the huge majority of the actual 9/11 commission reccomendations as part of their 100 hours boom.

[Chisoxfn]

1. It's the government

 

2. Any recommendations won't be taken seriously (9/11 Commission what?)

 

3. It's the government

 

4. It's become too political. It's posturing. It's the Dems saying 'look at us, unlike those straight-laced money-hungry fascist pig Republicans, we care about the environment, so we're gonna create this panel to look into it.

 

5. It's the government

 

6. The scientific community, on it's own, should have ample studies/reports for Congress to use to act. A meeting or two, sure, I'll go for that. A full-fledged committee that will take time and money away from more pressing needs? A waste.

 

7. It's the government.

Completely agree.

[Jenksismyhero]

The Dems finally just passed the huge majority of the actual 9/11 commission reccomendations as part of their 100 hours boom.

 

 

About time too!

[mr_genius]

4. It's become too political. It's posturing. It's the Dems saying 'look at us, unlike those straight-laced money-hungry fascist pig Republicans, we care about the environment, so we're gonna create this panel to look into it.'

 

 

totally. way too political.

[Balta1701]

About time too!

Well, you should have voted for a Democratic Congress earlier

[Jenksismyhero]

Well, you should have voted for a Democratic Congress earlier

 

Trust me, had I known Congress would turn into the whipping boy for the President I would have

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I agree with the Democrats plan to eliminate tax breaks on the oil industry provided it goes, as promised, to fund alternative energy research. Personally, I could care less about global warming but as a national security issue, energy independence is a big deal to me.

[Balta1701]

I agree with the Democrats plan to eliminate tax breaks on the oil industry provided it goes, as promised, to fund alternative energy research. Personally, I could care less about global warming but as a national security issue, energy independence is a big deal to me.

Since if you're in the army I'm going to assume you're about my age...let me say that from my position as a geologist who has had a decent amount of training in climate science, before your life is over, you will wind up caring very very much about anthropogenic climate change and wishing that the world had done something about it before it was too late.

 

But I will agree with you on the other part; if the U.S. were to develop full energy independence, it would be a wonderful thing for both the country and the world.

[EvilMonkey]

Just a thought, if the money is going to fun alternative energy research, wouldn't that be like shifting the money from your left pocket to your right pocket? Some of the biggest players in alternative energy are the oil companies themselves.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just a thought, if the money is going to fun alternative energy research, wouldn't that be like shifting the money from your left pocket to your right pocket? Some of the biggest players in alternative energy are the oil companies themselves.

Excellent point. And I am OK with that, as long as the result is the new, alternative product.

 

Plus, there are all sorts of little startups out there that are doing things differently, which could be supported.

[kapkomet]

Excellent point. And I am OK with that, as long as the result is the new, alternative product.

 

Plus, there are all sorts of little startups out there that are doing things differently, which could be supported.

So instead of giving them the tax breaks on the oil money, give it to them on the alternative energy technology. Give them a financial reason to support it (which after all is the only reason to support things like this... *puke*).

[Balta1701]

Just a thought, if the money is going to fun alternative energy research, wouldn't that be like shifting the money from your left pocket to your right pocket? Some of the biggest players in alternative energy are the oil companies themselves.

The government actually does this quite a bit...for example, with research funding in health areas. The government will pay for research that the government feels is important but that the private sector may be neglecting. It might not be all that profitable for an oil company to try to research a way to wean the U.S. off of oil, but that same oil company is moderately happy to take additional government money in exchange for doing the research.

 

Probably not the best system we could design, but I'm not sure what the other optionw ould be.

[southsider2k5]

So instead of giving them the tax breaks on the oil money, give it to them on the alternative energy technology. Give them a financial reason to support it (which after all is the only reason to support things like this... *puke*).

 

And the irony is that as we make crude oil more expensive (through higher taxes, less grants) , they have less incentive to actually roll out these new technologies that they own, (remember they are paying for research) and we probably stall the enaction of these things. Add that and all of the NIMBYs in Congress and around the country, and this is starting to sound like a pyramid sceme.

[kapkomet]

Probably because it is, and always has been. But Pelosi and her Democratic party is so righteous. /rolly