Do we need new laws requiring industry to cut emissions of global warming pollution?

Answer 1

As long as the government dont have to use anything that will be affected by this 'rule' then you have a chance of having it passed.
If not, forget it....

If the government want to lead us to believe that the enviroment is in a state, then a certtain one wouldnt have needed 3jags, his wife wouldnt have used chauffer driven limo after a haircut. etc etc etc

if u cut these, they will find an excuse that warrants them putting more prices up

Pretty soon, everything will be over all our price-range abilities........

Once theyve stopped industry, they could start on travel... then whats next

Answer 2

Yes--but those laws need to be carefully written-and carefully resesearched. Simply passing laws--well-intended or not--isn't the answer.

The most effective sort of legislation is usually one of two types:
1) Public policy initiatives that promote technology innovation--or remove barriers to it. With regard to CO2 emissions, this would mean focusing research funding in those areas (promoting research). In addition you want to make sure that you don't inadvertantly block alternatives from coming to market. You want to make sure the regulations governing automobiles , for example, have wording that would favor--or even require--things that would inhibit low-or-zero-emisssions technology.

The othr type of law is like the current proposal to require that manufacturers substantially increase fuel efficiency. What this law does is set a standard of performance--but it does not say anything about HOW to improve the fuel efficiency. That leaves companies free to innovate, experiment, and find the best--andmost cost-effective methods.

You almost always DON't want to pass "prescriptive" laws--ones that prescribe a given solution. For example, Congress could pass a law requiring all cars to be hybrids. But that would be a BAD idea--it would rule out other technologies that might do a better job of improving fuel efficiency, for one thing. Plus a number of other negative consequences.

The whole issue, however, has a feature that is causing--and will continue--to cause major resistance to change, legislative or otherwise. Simply put: any major shift in our technology and policy that substantially reduces emissions is going to seriously reduce the revenues and profitibility fo the fossil fuel industry. There is no "alternative" that won't do that--for the simple reason that if you burn oil or coal, what you get is CO2.

And the kind of declines in CO2 we are going to see in the next 50 years--anywhere from 30-80%--means tthis is soon going to become a declining industry. They will--they already are--fighting change.

NOTE: that does not mean reducing COw2 emissions will be "bad for the economy"--the opposite is true. Higher energy efficiency means reduced costs for consumers (including you), new technology means new industries and new jobs. Our economy improves it s performance and becomes more competitive with other nations. Bottom line--economic growth.

But its a death sentence for the fossil fuel industry. Oh, they'll survive--but not as the economy-dominating giants they are now.

Answer 3

Ah, the true nature of what "global warming" is about. Making new laws to control people. Sure, to help save the world we will just require a little of your freedom, not much, you won't even notice. And when that doesn't solve the problem, we'll just take a little more, and more, and more, and more till the point where you don't have any more freedom and the planet will still be getting warmer.....

Answer 4

If there are going to be global warming laws, then I propose that they bot be applied in a haphazard way, but in a comprehensive bill.

The projected costs of these laws will be made public and the American people will vote for it, just like a bond election or local sales tax hike.

And unlike a progressive tax system that gives relief to lower income individuals, this "tax" will hit everyone pretty much the same.

Answer 5

Yes, we need to create a carbon cap and trade system whereby companies are given a carbon emission allotment. If they need to emit more than they're allowed, they can buy carbon credits from a company that emitted less than allowed. This is the only way we're going to meet the greenhouse gas emission reductions necessary to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

Answer 6

definite it has become a faith and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.think of of ways lots money appropriate agencies will make off of the hype.think of of all that government money going to "learn".as properly there is maximum popular lots you will have the capacity to do ,interior the top whoever controls the climate controls the sector.worry is the passable political motivator. climate distinction is factor of the character of the planet.person-friendly sense is to have sparkling vigor in spite of the shown fact that till there's a dollar in all of it that occurs is talk,talk and greater talk.government regulations,fines and effects(gotta get that bailout money someplace) We with out doubt want sparkling air and water .i'm the shaped recycler and that i don't waste vigor corresponding to many distinctive persons.i exploit vigor and don't come to a decision on the "guilt" trip of doing so. I actually have a significant subject with Gore the guru who flies around a gas guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for a greater physically powerful one to fly backward and forward to California.remember her announcing she needs to maintain a great number of the planet,yeah she flies we walk.we can all initiate by ability of ability of employing the form new vigor saving soft bulbs. Oh I forgot they are those with mercury in them.Oh,solid sounds like a properly thought on the time. I wager you all heard that some genius politician wanted to tax cow farmers for any that very own better than a hundred for emitting "methane gas" yeah it particularly is genuine.can we bottle it instead?Or on 2nd thought deliver some from the bull to that politician as he knows of the B.S. mutually as he sees or smells it.

Answer 7

And how will they do this?

Raising the price of electricity/gasoline?

Or just rationing it?

Please explain what laws you are talking about that will reduce CO2 emissions.

But whatever you are suggesting, I'll bet my response will be either:

That will not reduce CO2 emissions.

-OR-

That will cost alot. And nothing costs companies, it only costs consumers.

Answer 8

According to the best estimates we would need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions world wide to less than one tenth of what they are today.

In order to accomplish that we would have to ban all motorized forms of transportation.

We would have to ban all manufacturing, steel making and cement making.

Next we would have to ban the heating and air conditioning of all homes, offices and factories.

Next we would have to ban the heating of all water for washing and bathing.

Essentially we would have to learn to bathe in cold water.

Even all of these restrictions would not cut carbon dioxide emissions to one tenth of what they are today.

You would also have to get the cooperation of all countries world wide.

The People's Republic of China is on record as refusing to reduce its use of fossil fuels or its carbon dioxide emissions. This is a very important issue for The People's Republic of China.

I recently had the opportunity to attend a meeting of officials from The People's Republic of China with officials and business people in the United States. One of the representatives from The People's Republic of China was very emphatic that The People's Republic of China considers any attempt to reduce its use of fossil fuels and reduce its carbon dioxide emissions as a threat to the economy of The People's Republic of China.

It is clear that you will not get the cooperation of The People's Republic of China on the issue of reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.

The carbon dioxide emissions of The People's Republic of China alone are large enough to cause Global Warming even if you reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of every other country on this planet to zero.

It is not realistic for us to expect to be able to reduce carbon dioxide emissions sufficiently to stop Global Warming.

What we must do is accept the fact that we cannot stop Global Warming and insted start planning now how we will mitigate the effects of Global Warming.

The sea levels will rise. Fortunately the coastal areas that will be affected can be protected with dike systems similar to those used in Holland to hold back the sea.

Hurricanes will become stronger and more frequent. We need to help the affected countries upgrade their disaster preparedness systems for hurricanes.

Droughts will become more frequent. We will need to help the affected countries with supplemental water supplies and desalination plants.

We cannot stop Global Warming but we can mitigate the effects at reasonable cost if we start now.

Answer 9

Let's just install a form of government that did what Pol Pot in Cambodia did...force everyone in the cities into the countryside to be become farming peasants. No industry. Just perfect, peaceful, agrarian, Communist UTOPIA!! Everyone...turn in your IPODS now or face execution!

Answer 10

Lets pass a law, then set huge fines if companies do not comply and watch every single price for every single product sky rocket.
Global warming is not man-made and therefore cannot be controlled by humans.