|
|
Curtailing Carbon: A Radical SolutionMar 15 '07 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Sport and Outdoor
The Bottom Line Our "right" to emit CO2 should be based on our contribution to providing those valuable products and services that benefit the largest number of people!
A year ago I posted a discussion of the carbon cycle on Earth, and its connection to climate and global warming. As the science of climate change advances it is becoming more apparent that human consumption of carbon for energy must be curtailed. The most economical forms of carbon for energy---coal and oil, the so-called fossil fuels---are a limited resource formed over millions of years, and now being consumed for conversion to energy at an ever-increasing rate. The unavoidable depletion of this resource is reason enough for carbon curtailment and eventual withdrawal. But, quite apart from depletion, we know that the principle by-product of burning coal or oil for energy is carbon dioxide, CO2. CO2 is produced naturally by every living animal, and is consumed naturally by every living plant-- a normal part of the cycle of nature. CO2 is non-poisonous, colorless, odorless, and harmless; however, ecologists now regard it as a "pollutant" because it is a "greenhouse gas"---one whose presence in the atmosphere prevents the sun's warmth from radiating from the earth back into space. At historical nominal levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, the warming effect keeps the global climate temperate and in a range that sustains our life on earth. But now, burning of fossil fuels is increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2, creating concerns about global warming, melting of polar ice caps, raising of worldwide sea levels, and a host of other potentially disastrous effects on life on earth. Whether or not the disaster scenarios are correct or accurate it would be VERY prudent to take reasonable steps to curtail the consumption of carbon to produce energy. There are a great many technological avenues being explored to bring about "carbon curtailment", or "carbon withdrawal", and there are more Draconian government policies being advocated to accelerate this change. Some see it as the most urgent matter that mankind must confront. The best-known global proposal related to the problem is the Kyoto Protocol, agreed upon by many nations and rejected by a few, including the United States. One of the principle provisions of the Kyoto Protocol is the idea of worldwide international trading of "carbon credits," a scheme in which each company in each nation would buy and sell the right to consume carbon and release CO2 into the atmosphere. Here's a very over-simplified explanation of the concept: The underlying premise is that each and every human being OUGHT to have an equal right to generate and release into the atmosphere an equal amount of CO2, an amount determined by some Global Carbon Trading Commission based on satisfying goals for controlling and limiting the overall amount of CO2 being released into the earths atmosphere. Each nation would then have a "quota" for CO2 emissions that would be based solely on population. Industrial nations like the US, where per capita CO2 emissions are higher than the global average, would have to buy the right to emit CO2 from other nations where per capita CO2 emissions are lower than average. It is obvious that the immediate effect would be a massive transfer of wealth from highly industrialized nations like the US to less industrialized nations like Uganda, Pakistan, India, or Paraguay. There are some who suspect that such transfer of wealth is the REAL motivation behind the concerns about global warming, and why the Kyoto Protocal is enthusiastically embraced by egalitarian eggheads. I want to discuss an alternate idea. I see nothing inherently reasonable, just, or correct about the concept that each and every individual human being should have an equal quota for CO2 emissions. Such a quota ought to be earned, it seems to me, and based on what each individual is producing with the carbon he or she converts to CO2, and how much what each individual produces contributes to the comfort and well-being of himself and others---and especially HOW MANY others. The concept, of course, must be extended and applied to corporations and ultimately to nations. As an example, consider the large global corporations engaged in finding ickey-gooey black liquid deep in the ground, pumping it to the surface, transporting it halfway around the earth, refining it and converting it into the kerosene, gasoline and fuel oil that warms our homes and fuels our vehicles. Much of what they produce is sold to other large corporations who convert the fuels to electrical energy, which they sell to consumers to heat and light their homes, to cook their meals, and to communicate electronically with others---as well as to other corporations who use it to convert otherwise useless materials into useful and valuable products. Such products and services are the REAL wealth of the world, created by the work of our civilization. Consider as well all the others who use these energy products to grow food, to manufacture cars, to build homes, to manufacture television sets, all the goods and services that support our life on earth and make our lives rewarding and comfortable---rather than the lives of drudgery and danger that were the lot of our not-too-distant ancestors before the development of modern means of converting carbon into energy, and energy into all the things that make our lives comfortable. So----the right to consume carbon and emit CO2 really ought to be based on the total REAL value to people everywhere of the products and services produced by such consumption and emissions. Then the right to emit CO2 for any individual, corporation, or nation, would be based on the total REAL value of the products and services produced and made available to the global citizenry. A cap can be set on the total worldwide quota for emission of CO2 based on what legitimate climate scientists determine (certainly NOT bureaucrats and politicians). And preferably by scientists and technologists who are employed by corporations, and have a balanced view of the value of products and services, and realistic prospects for reducing carbon -based energy consumption without drastically limiting the production of those products and services. The realistically determined global quota would then be divided among producers of goods and services in proportion to the REAL value of what they produce. "But," you ask," who will determine the REAL value of these goods and services, and on what basis?" A very good question! Thank you for asking! The REAL value of any good or service is, in FACT, what a willing buyer is willing to exchange for it with a willing seller. That concept is known as the "market"---so my suggestion is that the REAL value of any good or service be determined by the market---the free "votes" of the citizenry---provided that it is a market largely unrestricted by governmental restrictions or interference. Like the economy of the United States, for example. All the machinery to make such calculations already exists, for both nations and corporations. So let CO2 quotas be distributed to corporations based on their revenue and to nations based on their gross national product. They are the best available measures of the total real value of the goods and services they produce and provide for us. The targets for reduced CO2 will be exactly in accord with the means at the disposal of corporations to fund such CO2 reducing initiatives. Of course the idea has to be extended for emission of CO2 for non-productive activity. For those kinds of activity (such as breathing) perhaps a per capita quota would be reasonable, and could easily be established and added to the model suggested above. Or---perhaps we adopt the view that anyone who is not somehow contributing to production of useful goods and services has NO right to emit CO2 by breathing---with compassionate allowances for legitimate cases of disability, of course. And what about the means for monitoring and enforcement? One could envision a massive global bureaucracy to implement rewards and penalties, or to facilitate some sort of trading scheme. It would be a bureaucracy far more intrusive and far larger than the tax collection bureaucracies of each nation, like our IRS. A VERY bad idea, in my opinion! I think my solution can be implemented by voluntary cooperation between the largest global corporations, with government looking on and mediating. I trust the leaders of our best corporations far more than I trust any of our political leaders. I visualize a system of CO2 credits and debits---credits for those corporations that emit less than their quota---debits for those who emit more than their quota. The voluntary expectation would be that earned credits can be used in the subsequent period, say five years, and debits must be eliminated by reduced emissions in the same subsequent period. If the scientific consensus is anywhere near as broad as claimed, all must agree with the goal of Curtailing Carbon---it would be utterly irrational to resist the idea, and willfully set about to destroy the world. So there you have it---a radical but fair concept for Curtailing Carbon, and saving the world from global warming! Who could oppose such a totally fair, balanced and sensible approach? Even egalitarian eggheads should be able to see the merit of this solution!  |
| Read all comments (30)|Write your own comment |
|
Ads by Google
|
