san francisco is going to start charging regional industries for their pollution, according to the bbc.
they're being charged 4.4 cents for every ton of carbon dioxide they dump into the atmosphere, and is expected to generate $1.1m next year for "programmes to measure and control local greenhouse gas emissions."
naturally, the capitalists are going to say it hurts business.
tough shit.
know what else hurts business? maintaining obsolete industries and methods of production out of sheer simplicity or cheapness. this is a kick in the ass in the right direction that gets everyone interested in clean energy development, including the polluters themselves.
however, here's the big question: let's say this sort of pollution penalty spreads across the developed world, and we all clean up in the next 20 years or so. does this mean that all the polluters pack up and move to zimbabwe, vietnam, or other less-industrialized countries? will there be rogue states who refuse to play the "save the planet" game in the interest of immediate returns?
how can the battle against climate change ever be taken truly global?
any thoughts?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
dirty liberals try to clean up
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 responses:
Outrageous. Rogue states who refuse to abide by an environmental protection agreement that's been adopted by every other first-world country? Bomb those bastards! Bomb 'em to hell!
... Wait. The Kyoto Pact... We're gonna sign that eventually, right?
yeah, as soon as we kick out the crazy fucks who hijacked our government.
the only bomb getting dropped on america is the o-bam, and hopefully that's all we need to right the ship.
The only way to ensure fairness across the board is to enforce carbon emission quotas that are based on a nation's population. By those standards, a country like America would have to cut it's emissions by a huge amount but developing countries would have to adhere too if they want to export goods or be a part of WTO.
That's where Joe's concern about population control comes into play. If populations keep growing at the rate they are, especially in the third world and in Asia, countries like India will find it almost impossible to adhere to carbon emission caps. With their burgeoning production and export based economies the developing countries will have serious problems keeping within their quotas. And as money flows into those countries and consumer consumption increases that in turn will result in more emissions.
While a country like China has been successful at curbing population rates, they don't care nearly as much about green house gases and global warming. Pollution will remain a low priority in poorer countries that have just recently thrown their hats into the globalisation game. Their populations have only now started to receive the benefits of the economic boom.
If these countries can persuade their citizens to avoid the mistakes of the west now, there is hope. It would be easier to do it too because they haven't yet become used to the lavish and wasteful lifestyles that the west has enjoyed for generations.
Minotauro hit the nail on the head. The answer is trade sanctions.
The U.S. needs to lead by example here, though. Right now we're like the big brother that tells his little siblings not to drink while chugging a bottle of gin and taking a crap in the driveway.
There's another feasible method that we could employ here, but it's complicated, and I intend to post on it at length in the near future.
carbon cap-and-trade programs could work, though this seems like a fair regional solution, rather than something that could be done globally. this would only continue to enforce the disproportionate pollution levels of wealthy nations.
trade sanctions do make the most sense, partially because they enforce the idea that buying into the global economic system also necessarily must include the altruism that is required to keep this planet habitable.
Post a Comment