http://www.qando.net/ - "Click!" - The lightbulb goes on ...

A U.S. economist praises Congress for planning to fight global warming, but he says the plan being considered would hasten environmental calamity.

Peter Morici, former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission, is concerned about the Warner-Lieberman bill pending in the Senate. It would limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 to 2005 levels, and reduce those by 70 percent in 2050.

"Unfortunately, by encouraging energy-intensive American industries to flee to developing countries, this bill would penalize U.S. businesses that could contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thus accelerate global warming," said Morici in an op-ed article posted at baltimoresun.com.

Of course that doesn't mean Morici believes we shouldn't do something. He's apparently a proponent of cat herding:

"Working toward a global set of standards for such industries would be a better approach.

"Reducing emissions in industrialized countries by moving carbon-intensive manufacturing to developing countries only raises emission levels worldwide, because China and others use fossil fuels so inefficiently."

And that inefficient use isn't going to change anytime soon, nor is China or India going to agree to cripple their growing economies to please Western nations.

So here's the point: As it stands either all nations cripple their economies voluntarily (not going to happen) or we unilaterally cripple ours (likely with Warner-Lieberman) even though it won't do a thing to ameliorate the supposed global problem.

That's as it stands now. There is a third option which no one seems to want to discuss: we do nothing via government and let the science continue to investigate solutions and the market decide which are worth financing and bringing to market.

TrackBacks

Return to Main Blog Page

Comments For This Post

Previous Comments to this Post

Comments

Science is already doing more: Sheep flatulence inoculation developed

Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://

Frankly, the US government could do even more to encourage and advance nuclear power, both commercially and techologically.

The rebound for commercial nuclear power has started already but will be slow to get rolling, largely due to the limitations on experienced experts (I know, I am one and I’m working on a new plant already.) Still, the government could do more, like change the tax depreciation schedule to match windmills and solar panels.

In the technical areas, nuclear could power synthetic production of gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. The key is the high temperatures from pebble bed reactors currently under development. Dump a billion dollars a year into R&D for that and one could have a carbon-neutral nuclear coal-to-liquids prototype plant in 10 years and commercial production within 20.

Written By: Joseph Somsel
URL: http://

The rebound for commercial nuclear power has started already but will be slow to get rolling, largely due to the limitations on experienced experts (I know, I am one and I’m working on a new plant already.)

When I was a civi contractor for the navy (back in my grad student days), I knew a guy who was a nuke engineer who was learning to work admin on unix servers.

Written By: Don
URL: http://

"There is a third option which no one seems to want to discuss: we do nothing via government and let the science continue to investigate solutions and the market decide which are worth financing and bringing to market."

Nah. Makes too much sense—and the feel-good quotient isn’t high enough.

Written By: Chris
URL: http://

There is a third option which no one seems to want to discuss: we do nothing via government and let the science continue to investigate solutions and the market decide which are worth financing and bringing to market.

Problem is that no one owns the air and there is no attributable cost applied to dumping there.

Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/

Its june and Its friggin cold out here in Massachusetts. How about we do more global warming.

Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com

Kooky 4th option - raise consumption taxes in proportion to carbon footprints of each purchase. Tax the internal consumer market and rebate tax on all exports so does not impact international competitiveness. Tax this on all items consumed locally foreign and local produced to levy for damage to commons.

Anticipate that raising taxes in this manner will require a reduction of income taxes.

Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/

What better way to move Google and other IT powerhouses overseas? Besides moving industrial production out of the US and programming in recent years, this legislation would puta final nail in the coffin of the U.S. IT industry by removing any further reason to retain operations domestically.

Tack on upcoming tax hikes to pay for decades of excess spending, unfunded promises in social security, Federal and state pensions, etc., and any prudent technology firm would simply relocate. It’s not as if Americans will have any money (from a viable currency) to spend anyways...

Written By: redherkey
URL: http://

Add Your Comment

	NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
	Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Comment:
	Remember Me

Vicious Capitalism

Buy Dale's Book!