Dealing with ozone depletion however, involves dealing with a relatively small number of companies. It is no coincidence that fossil fuels companies are among the largest corporations and spend a lot of money against any change.
Right, but that’s a different argument. Also, the stakes with AGW are a lot higher than with ozone depletion.
Also also; ozone depletion had very little impact on the northern hemisphere in general, nor the US in particular, yet the solution was still pushed through.
Edit: you’re right. Dealing with ozone depletion is not an exact analogue for dealing with AGW. But it’s not completely different either. That’s the thing about analogues; they’re never exactly the same as the thing they’re being used to highlight … otherwise they would be the thing being highlighted.
Don’t get me wrong, I would like to see an agreement on c02 emissions, I live in British Columbia where we’ve had a carbon tax since 2008, which is supposed to be revenue neutral (ie. the money returned in our taxes) and considering we’ve had the carbon tax through the worst financial slowdown since the depression and right now BC is not exactly booming but a bright spot in the Canadian economy should be evidence that a carbon tax is not a job-killer as the Republicans like to say.
Another example of an agreement working was the cap and trade on acid rain causing sulphur dioxide emissions in the 80s.
My point is that the US will lose competitive advantage if they focus on reviving fossil fuels - ie. battery technology, solar and wind, continue to go down in price, and even fusion may be on the way, whereas fossil fuels did have a huge increase with fracking (hence the recent glut). This is what proponents of renewables should be focusing on. Germany and China will do it first.
Instead of emailing with ideas, the new right spends most of its time shooting messengers.
The irony is that they’d be too illiterate to read the message anyway.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.