Perhaps they should start by banning the use of fossil fuels by Warmists. Oh, and the use of the Internet by Warmists, because it uses lots of energy. Here’s Crikey’s Paddy Mannington (via Climate Depot)
Screw consultation, let’s just ban stuff: how to really fight climate change
Here’s an idea. If the business community and the conservative side of politics are never going to embrace market mechanisms to tackle climate change — what our PM has derisively termed a “so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no oneâ€â€‰â€” then let’s stop pandering to them and go back to banning stuff.
Emissions trading schemes (ETS) or “cap and tradeâ€, as the Americans call it, was meant to be a business-friendly, economically rational alternative approach to regulation and the command economy. It was used there successfully in the 1990s to stop acid rain by reducing emissions of sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides. It is a strategy the US energy industry — as executives will tell you in a quiet moment — is extremely comfortable with.
But if the business lobby is going to go into hysterics about every sensible proposal to establish an ETS — or worse, jump into bed with the climate sceptics and abandon action on climate altogether, as they’ve done this year — then stuff ‘em.
Are the lobbyists and spinmeisters worried about red and green tape? Always. That’s their job. Let’s give them something to really worry about. All business wants is a level playing field. If the law establishes we are going to reduce emissions fast, companies will work within the law (ultimately, gladly, because you’d be mad to think businesspeople are not concerned about climate change). Australia’s economy will get what early-mover advantages the Germans and Japanese and Californians haven’t hoovered up.
Lest you think this is a joke, it’s not. Mannington is dead serious. He offers 4 ideas, which, surprisingly, do not force Warmists to live the carbon neutral lifestyle. Yeah, weird, right?
These direct actions are entirely compatible with our current system of government. No revolution is required: all we have to do to solve climate change is unplug fossil fuels, plug in renewables, and stop chopping down forests. If we can’t do that — as the sub-title for Naomi Klein’s forthcoming book This Changes Everything declares — it’s capitalism versus the climate, and there’s no doubt which will win.
OK, so, all Warmists need to do is to stop using fossil fuels and erect solar panels and wind turbines for their homes….as long as those homes aren’t built with wood from trees.
Notice that this is the same “compromise” that Obama uses. If you don’t do exactly what is proposed, then you are a bad guy and need to be hurt. Notice that there is only one solution to CO2, and that is cap and trade. Here it is described as a reasonable approach. In other words, what they are saying is that we want to take over and are using a made up environmental problem to do so.
Cap and trade is a market-based, conservative proposal – that is, until 2008 when the conservative movement went batshit crazy.
How do we decrease CO2 pollution? We can either decrease the amount we inject into the atmosphere or remove CO2 from the atmosphere – or both.
A carbon cap and trade system would gradually reduce the amount of CO2 emitted (as would a draconian ban or a direct carbon tax). Cap and trade is believed to be much less disruptive (a good Conservative idea that the Teabaggers abandoned).
Green plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it as cellulose for a while. There is also much research on finding a practical carbon capture and storage (CCS) process.
Of course, all this is moot to far-rightists since global warming is a hoax perpetrated on patriotic conservatives by liberal cultists.
“How do we decrease CO2 pollution?” We don’t need to because it’s not a pollutant. And I’ll bet the bed-wetter proposing this can’t name one “bad” thing that’s been caused by additional CO2. Levels of CO2 have been much higher in the past and, well, we’re still here.
I think to be really fair, in the USA we should have Green Taxation and Green Restrictions by Representation. Those Congresspersons that vote for these taxes and restrictions shall have those taxes and restriction applied to their Districts. They shall not be applied in those Districts whose Representatives voted against such taxes and restrictions. This would give the voters a clear choice to vote for and the more “green districts” can have all the “green” their Representative votes for. Thereby a resident of a Green District can pay their 10% green surcharge on gasoline, electricity, new cars, housing, appliances, airplane tickets, etc. Cash registers and computers can be programed to identify residents of Green Districts no matter where they shop so they can pay their desired taxes and not jump district boundaries to avoid their share. Such tax collection and restrictions would be used to improve the mass transit, create green parks, bike lanes, sidewalks, plant more trees, subsidise windmills and solar panels, limit car sales, Gas grills and small gasoline engines like lawnmowers etc. As the districts improve and life is better, with cleaner environment, fewer cars and emissions, and less heat, other districts will be willing to join the movement.
Blick,
Good idea. And every person who votes for a President that takes us into a stupid, horrible war should be placed in a lottery to serve in said war and assessed a 25% surtax on all income and wealth.
j,
Do you know what the word “pollutant” means? We can’t discuss it until you look it up. Damn.
I’ll name two bad things from our current atmospheric CO2 level: ocean acidification and global warming. You’re welcome.
Atmospheric CO2 is higher now than at any time in the last 15 million years. Human civilization is about 10,000 years old. Modern humans as a species are less than a million years old. The Genus Homo, maybe 2 million years old. The hominid family about 15 million years old. Humans as a species and human civilizations have never existed with CO2 levels this high – until now. If CO2 wasn’t a greenhouse gas, it wouldn’t be a problem.
I made a mistake in my proposal; the 10% surcharge could only be spent in the districts that generated it. So non-green districts would not benefit from the green projects directly.
As to Jeffery’s sarcasm, it is what you get if you propose a half serious compromise to getting something green started. It shows he is not serious about Global Warming as a threat, but he is serious about dictatorial Power and Control of people’s lives.
Jeff,
By your own admission the oceans are alkaline. You have never shown a method for acidification of the oceans and are not even aware that the oceans produce CO2. I think the first thing you need to do is get educated.
Then there is the issue of who approved the various wars we are in. If you bother to look, you will find they were overwhelming supported by the Democrats.