New global warming strategy: limit each person’s emissions
Posted by Wellsy on July 6, 2009
It sounds insane, but the National Academy of Sciences suggests that instead of targeting emission cuts for wealthy countries, it would be fairer to mandate emission cuts for wealthy individuals only. Before you get your class warfare gear on and say “Yeah, screw those rich people,” you might consider that the study considers there will be a billion high emitters out of a projected population of 8.1 billion, so 1 in 8 of us will be considered rich enough to merit government attention. That would be about 38 million people in this country if you took the entire world in aggregate today, but since we’re one of the wealthier nations, the number would be much higher.
This is wrong on several levels. First, man-made global warming is science that is still in dispute, and is driven more by political hysteria than consistent scientific findings. Al Gore and company have become rich peddling the notion that we need governments regulating our industries and the activities of daily life to make sure we have sustainable carbon footprints. I’m all for responsible stewardship of our precious planet, but I draw the line at this extreme environmentalism that seems to use politically-minded concern for the Earth as an excuse for more governmental control.
Secondly, whether you’re targeting rich countries or rich individuals, the result is the same: you’re punishing the “rich,” whatever that level of income is decided to be at the time. It’s redistribution of wealth, and it is another way of deincentivizing success and innovation. The cute little secret is that it’s the world’s elite who meet to discuss how environmental regulations will affect the rest of us.
Climate talks are underway this week in Italy. I’m sure with the current crowd in control of the legislative and executive branches, America will be signing on to whatever agreement they come up with. Keep in mind that the folks writing these laws won’t have your best interests in mind, and I’d argue they don’t have the planet’s best interests in mind either. It’s all yet another excuse to scold the common citizen and give more power to a nanny state.
Stefan said
Thank you for this interesting post, especially when you say: “Keep in mind that the folks writing these laws won’t have your best interests in mind, and I’d argue they don’t have the planet’s best interests in mind either.”
“Web populi web dei”
This is exactly why after 2 years we are proposing Project Seanergy to the community. We are an international team of volunteers and our proposal has been recognized of value. Polluting costs more and leaves a poisoned legacy to our children. Our proposal avoids enormous quantities of Green House Gases for the next generation.
Whatever the real impact of GHG might be, in our mind paying more to pollute uselessly is a non sense. Hopefully the online community will feel as we do, because the solutions do exist and it is time we decide how our children will be impacted.
Without Seanergy, in just a few years, the world’s biggest boats will sail through the Arctic because it cuts their travel distances in half and saves them a lot of money. Well 15 of the world biggest boats pollute as much as all the world’s 760 million cars. These are the boats we want to help save money while protecting the Arctic from their current level of pollution.
After 2 years of waiting and before we miss the Copenhagen deadline, we are changing audience and we will let the community decide if we should or not keep on. We tried our best to make things simple to understand and easy to support, as easy as eating a Hamburger.
http://www.seanergy.ca/burger.html
So what do you think ?
Best regards and thank you for sharing.
Stefan
Mr Pink Eyes said
Is there any doubt left that this “movement” is really just a front for implementing a socialist agenda?