Is limiting greenhouse gas emissions bad for the economy?

Question

People who are against mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions say that placing limits will hurt the economy because the costs to business of modifying production methods or capturing gases emitted will be prohibitive.

Embracing the technology that will almost certainly be needed in the future to capture or "recycle" emitted gases would grow a whole new industry, however. Also, failing to limit emissions might have negative consequences for our economy as well, especially given that most of the rest of the world is moving in that direction.

Do you think limiting emissions will hurt our economy?

Note; this isn't a question about whether humans cause global warming or about Al Gore, so if you're wanting to respond to either of those please wait for a question on either of those.

Answer 1

green technology is becoming a huge industy in and of itself. Alot of coporations are already taking proactive steps to implement different technologies, because in most cases it saves them money, as well as helping to improve their image.

America is built on innovation. We should always strive to stay ahead of the curve. As you said...embracing this type of thinking and the technology involved will be needed in the future anyway. Why not start now ?

If it has to be mandatory...so be it. The long term benefits greatly outweigh any short term cost.

Answer 2

As it pertains to the Auto Industry, limiting emissions actually helps american auto makers. If you think about it, it's really a rigged game. You have all the foreign auto makers, whose governments have adopted laws limiting emissions, and those companies can sell to both their markets, and our market. Our car companies, however, can only sell cars in our market unless they adapt their cars to be legal in other countries. The problem right now is that american auto makers have passed the point where this was possible, and now they can't modify the design of their cars to reduce emissions - they don't have the cash. Instead, what they are doing is now pushing for cleaner fuel (E85), which will also open up an entire secondary market for american farmers. So, in actuality, limiting emissions isn't strictly necessary, because the auto makers have figured out for themselves that they need to develop a cleaner fuel. The trick now is to get the energy companies to actually sell alternative fuels, and we will be well on our way to becoming oil independent.

Answer 3

Your question is a good one. And according to our administration, America has the most to lose by complying with the Kyoto Treaty. What bothers me is that the technology is there to literally stop global warming. But it would cost industry money and they do not want to spend it on saving the environment unless a) their Board of Directors tells them so, and that won't happen, because the BOD is there to make sure that PROFIT is the greatest it can be, regardless of the effect on the people, the planet, the environment; 2) the government tells the corporations to do so, and that won't happen either because the government is put in power by those same corporations.

The only thing American business understands is PROFIT. IF the consumer says to business "screw you" I am not buying your product because it wrecks the planet, and actually takes their money elsewhere, you would see corporate America change over to 'green' technology in a heartbeat. Period. But even the American consumer does not really care about the environment - look at the litter, look at the number of SUV's, look at the empty seats on buses and trains, especially in California.

Answer 4

If I were to open up my greenhouse, the cold air would get in and destroy my plants. Then I would have to buy more plants. So I guess one person might argue that it would be good. But then I would take money from a bank to do it which would lower the capital the bank has to loan. Overall I do not think it would be either good or bad.

Answer 5

Our national leaders have driven us right into a national security vulnerability their short-sighted, for-quarterly-profit motives didn't envision.

Since our economic policies have bankrupted the nation (we depend on the self-interest of exporting nations like China, the Arab states and Japan to loan us money for their exports), we are unable to make the needed investments ourselves. What motive do these same nations have in investing in the upgrades to OUR infrastructure that will make us more independent of them?

The short-term pain is going to be dramatic due to the mismanagement that has preceded our day of reckoning. It will require massive infrastructure investment, retooling and shifts in our way of life. We've been partying like our resources are unlimited and there is never going to be an environmental hangover. This was extremely careless.

The longer we wait to correct our mistakes, the more likely life on earth is doomed.

Answer 6

It depends, It can harm the economy.

It can also make energy prices increase.

If Power plants have to spend billions installing new equipment, then of course, they are going to increase electric rates to cover the cost.

If we want to decrease greenhouse gas emissions,

We need to build more nuclear power plants.

Since fossil fuel power plants are the largest contributors of green house gas's world wide.

And you have to wonder, if the Koyoto treaty was so good, then why didn't the last administration ever submit it to the US Senate to be ratified, during Clintons last three years in office ?

Answer 7

Right now, yes.

Technologies are not mature enough to support arbitrary government mandates. Just relax, the free market is demanding more fuel efficient and cleaner cars. They are coming with or without government mandates.

Why do liberals always have to resort to government force to make changes happen? How about entering the battle of ideas for a change?

Answer 8

Does it matter if it would hurt our economy? At least it would be for a good reason, not like illegal immigration, high gas prices, high food prices, foriegn trade and the loss of good paying jobs with benefits. We need to clean up the air and Washington! It needs to work for the average citizen not the average corporation.

Answer 9

No the "hurt the economy" is a red herring. It almost always is. The republicans justify their destructive greed by saying that asking them to behave even slightly like decent people will "hurt the economy". The economy adjusts to most anything. Well, it would have been able to if bush hadn't totally wrecked america's finances.

Answer 10

We should all have electric cars and trucks. Oh wait, we need electricity for that and we would have to build more electric plants that burn oil, coal, or nuclear power , and the environmentalists are against those as well. I guess its bicycles or roller skates.