What are your views on this future global warming policy?

Question

As the global community moves toward a unified policy on controlling CO2 emissions and pollution to slow down global warming, there is a possibility that all nations will agree to enforce sanctions against violators of this future policy. What would be your position on enforcing such policies through economic and political means if the violator was the US, & if through this enforcement meant a drastic decline in the US economy that would possibly lead to a global economic recession or depression since the US is the major economic contributor to global economic prosperity? Pls keep in mind that millions of people living in economically depressed nations depend on financial, food and medical aid from the US, and these same people would suffer from even more starvation and disease if the US economy drastically declines. Also, consider in your answer that the military and politically strength of the US help prevent these same people from being even more abused by other political entities

Answer 1

When you start with a flawed premise it's easy to spin the outcome any way you like.

Please produce the economic analysis that shows this "enforcement meant a drastic decline in the US economy ".

Here is my back of the envelope anaylsis.

US invests 500 billion over next 40 years on solar energy and new transmission grid.  Cost of energy drops to the cost of maintaining the infrastructure, fuel is free.  US maintains leadership position in the world and is free to help others as needed.

Answer 2

How would such a policy hurt the US economy? Reduced oil burning means reduced consumption -- which means we reduce the $15+ billion of oil we import from other countries EVERY DAY! Keeping some of that money in our economy via alternative energy sources produced in the US means more jobs & money. We wouldn't have to slow down our productions (your argument for the hurt economy), we would just have to find a better way. Better yet, if we find a new way to make energy we can export it and compile trillions of dollars like oil producers in the middle east.*

*I'm working on that now.

Answer 3

Bad idea.

Global socialism...... I don't think so.

Answer 4

I explained the science and economics of global warming (which will lead to climate chaos if we don't act very soon) in "Climate Chaos, an Escalating Avalanche," posted at heartspring.net/global_warming_greenhous...  Or just google "Climate Chaos, Handley."  

Very briefly, we must gradually increase the price of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions so we all have incentives to reduce them and develop and implement alternatives.  It's a pollution fee called a carbon tax.  

The fee can be revenue-neutral: revenue is not used by government but is distributed via an equal dividend to each person.  Or the funds could be used to replace payroll taxes on employment.  Either way, no net tax increase and no drag on the economy.

British Columbia has just started such a system.  The Carbon Tax Center www.carbontax.org has posted a description of the system on their site.  See the blog list at the bottom of the home page.   (We encourge your comments and support.)

Once the incentives are in place, we'll waste much less fossil fuel and alternatives will become competitive.  For instance, wind power would be cheaper than coal within a few years under the carbon tax proposed by the Carbon Tax Center.

The US wastes about half the energy we extract or import because it's so cheap that we don't bother to install insulation or to turn things off.  The EU uses about half what we do per person, mainly  due to higher fossil fuel energy prices.  

Dr. James Hansen, the lead climate scientist at NASA Goddard estimates that we need to reduce worldwide GHG emissions by 80% by 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate chaos. That will require everyone to be very motivated and engaged in energy conservation and conversion.  Gore compares it to the war effort in WWII.  

If US enacted a carbon tax, other nations would be encouraged to do likewise or have their exports to us carbon taxed.  

Economists Bill Nordhaus, Rob Shapiro, Ken Green have written some very impressive papers on carbon taxation.  Worth googling.  (Links on CarbonTax.org.)

Answer 5

This program is worthless as co2 does not cause temperatures to increase, increased temperatures cause co2 to rise.

Everyone knows its the Sun, not co2 that provides all warmth on Earth.  Any program the gvmt puts in place will surely fail just like the ethanol program has.