Is it worth waiting to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in case anthropogenic global warming is wrong?

Question

If the Lieberman/Warner carbon cap and trade system were passed in 2008 and took effect in 2012 (there's a 4 year gap to allow the EPA to get its rulemaking done and to give regulated industry formal notice of required changes), to comply with the emissions cap, covered sources would have to cut annual emissions by roughly 2 percent per year. By 2020, they would be emitting at 15 percent below the starting point in 2012.

If we waited just 2 years and passed the bill in 2010, to meet the same cumulative emissions cuts, emissions would have to fall by 4.3 percent per year - over twice as quickly - and we’d have to do it year after year until 2020, just to get to the same place. By 2020, emissions from covered sources would have to be cut 23 percent below the starting point in 2014.

http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2008/02/14/price_of_waiting/#comments

As you can see, even a small delay makes meeting emissions reductions goals much harder. Should we wait anyway?

Answer 1

D-man

  You know my stand on the GW..

I agree with you that the excessive amount of CO2 produced by the production of Bio-fuels and the additional CO2 that is produced because they are not as energy efficient is a problem.

   Gas is a great power source, I would like to see more cars burn LPG but then you see that the power ratio is not there and you would be burning more to equal gas hence more CO2 production.

   What we need is to limit trade with China (Major dirty coal user and has no regard to the environment) and it production of SO2. Sulfur dioxide is harder on the environment than CO2 and since China has no regulations we need to either stop buying from them or pay off part of our debt to them via emission control equipment.

   Cuba, South America, Mexico all have higher air pollution problems, Same reason plus the burn more ethanol in their cars.  Emission standards and CAFÉ rules here in the US will not cause any significant change in world production of CO2 (260 Mil US citizens’ vs. 3.8 billion others) What will is the use of economic restrictions to get them to at least comply with current US standards. These standards are higher than most the countries that we import our cheap goods from. Otherwise you will be just sending these jobs overseas with new laws that just benefit foreign companies

Answer 2

We are already seeking more effecient alternative fuel sources by necessity. We will eventually run low on fossil fuels. We should only act on proven facts.

Answer 3

Moving away from fossil fuels hurts the economy.  The "economy" is what provides people with things like food, hospitals, basic government services.  The kind of damage the "solutions" to  these "chicken little" theories would do to the economy will cause the deaths of MILLIONS of people ( mostly in the 3rd  world ).

So yes.. there are very good reasons to wait until this THEORY has a bit of proof.

Answer 4

Considering the costs of implementing this bill, yes.

The net job losses from S. 2191 are estimated by Charles River Associates to be 1.2 million to 2.3 million by 2015

For more info:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy...

By the way, these claims are backed up by references.  You can read those as well for even more info.

Answer 5

Absolutely, why would we handicap our economy for an unproven theory?

Answer 6

Sweden has made efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for a long time and we're now at a level at 7 ton/year per capita. The U.S. is over 20 ton.

When seeing the life we live here with good economic growth despite our "low" (it's still too high though) carbon footprints it's impossible for me to see that the U.S couldn't cut their emissions drastically without hurting it's economy. All it would take is just to make the same things in a "smarter" more carbon neutral way. Of course it will be easier and cost less to implement these changes in a smother and slower rate and the longer you wait the harder it's going to get to reach the goal. By waiting you're only hurting your own cause.

Answer 7

I've never liked the cap and trade tactic. I've always thought that rewarding the production of lower emmission, higher efficiency technology was the better policy. With the Cap and trade policy if a company is profitable enough it can just pay the fines and keep polluting. If you reward them for polluting less then it is a win-win scenario. You can introduce green technologies in ways that are not detrimental to the economy. But by attacking business in an adversarial role, this bill will do a great deal of damage to the economy. Chances are most businesses will find it cheaper to pay then fines than to abide by the restrictions. And those who play by the rules will be severely handicapped in the market. Imagine how much simpler it would be to just pay a subsidy to convert to more efficient, cleaner equipment.

Answer 8

It is also a good idea to reduce emissions and dependence on oil and such. Even if we are not contributing to global warming we should still help the environment. We also will not have oil forever we do not alliterative fuel sources.

Answer 9

yes,  we should burn as much as we can,  s***w our children, they will just have to deal with it.

Answer 10

No we should not wait! This is about drastic environmental and life altering experiences that will change the world as we know it. It needs to be done regardless. I want my grand children to be able to have a breath of fresh clean air too. Just because us humans have not and may not be here forever; I think it is arrogant and ridiculous to not address some possible future disasters which we may be able to do something about. Who knows how long we and our children will be here? It would be nice to be in the minds and hearts of our future generations knowing what we did and how we saved them from such a catastrophe. Even though we would be gone; our spirit and determination will remain with the people to be.

Answer 11

If you truly believe this "global warming" hype, would you show us by no longer using cars, gasoline or electricity(unless it's solar or wind powered) ?  

I'm not sure if you can run a computer off a windmill, but if I see you on Yahoo Answers after today I will know that you are not serious about global warming and really don't believe it will destroy the earth or you do believe but just don't care, like Al Gore.

Here's you chance to prove that you're a true believer.

Answer 12

It's not wrong so there's no point waiting.  In fact, we should have started doing something 20 years ago.  

Was this a trick question or did you get hit in the head and forget the AR4 SPM?  :-)

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4W...

Eric:

Here is CRA's model for estimating job losses:

http://www.crai.com/uploadedFiles/RELATI...

Could you point out where the details of the model are verified or essential points are supported by anything resembling independent review?  I can't find it, but you're so sure it's there maybe you could point it out to me?  Thanks.