Isn't Reducing Carbon Emissions Good For Our Long-Term Economy?

Question

To reduce global warming, we need to reduce two things: coal and gasoline (oil). Isn't reducing coal and gas better for our economy in the long run?

For coal, the cost from producing electricity from burning coal compared to nuclear are about the same (http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/rae-report.pdf). The difference is that coal emits mercury that poisons fish. This has reduced sales in fish, affecting the entire fishing industry.

For oil, higher gas prices set by OPEC has put enormous stress on the U.S. economy. Reducing carbon emissions will require that automakers make cars that get better gas mileage. If drivers don't need as much gas, people won't be hurting so much when gas prices go up again. The financial markets won't fluctuate as much in the future, solidifying our economy.

If carbon reductions can be better for the economy, why are people so afraid?

The Voice of Reason - I agree that in most cases, economic forces would normally pick the lowest cost option. Unfortunately, this was not the case with nuclear. Nuclear plants have not been built because of safety/environmental issues. Now, with the motivation to reduce carbon emissions, there appears to be significant motivation to build new nuclear plants to replace coal, despite these safety/environmental issues. This is one time that the nuke advocates should thank the environmentalists :-).

Answer 1

it's good

Answer 2

First, I do not buy into this whole carbon emission nonsense. However, when it comes to crude oil, it would be great if we could come up with a viable alternative. Such an alternative must be able to provide the kind of convenient power that crude oil now provides. It would have to be some renewable resource or current by-product. Using our food grain to make fuel is stupid. We have to make fuel from something we don't need for anything else.

As far as requiring cars to get better mileage and things like that, you have to be careful not to make cars no one wants to drive or so small that families will have to use two or three of them. That only defeats the purpose.

Most people do not realize that the rise of the SUV and minivan was caused by the auto manufacturers being pressured into meeting mileage numbers with passenger cars. In order to meet those restrictions, cars became smaller and lighter. Pretty soon, your average car could not accommodate the average family. Where people used to buy full sized cars or station wagons to haul all the kids and luggage etc. or to pull a trailer, they were instead left with only two alternatives. A minivan to move people and an SUV to tow with.

Merry Christmas!

.

Answer 3

Investments in technology only benefit the economy if they improve productivity by allowing more to be accomplished for less money. Artificially increasing the cost of energy (which is what will be required to reduce CO2) will cause productivity to go down. It is true that innovation will make up for this lost productivity over time, however, it will never actually allow the economy to come out further ahead than it would be if the price of energy was not artificially inflated in the first place.
That is why it is necessary to weight any benefit of any action against the costs. We also need to take into account that there is no proof that CO2 is actually causing warming and that any action to reduce CO2 might be futile.

Answer 4

I think in addition to that a Green-Marxist-Revolutionary U.N. makes good sense because it will save money on separate armies and provide moral and political motivation for citizens to defend lands through U.N. Charter and stop genocide. In addition with the pricing and reduction rule and a Green-Marxist economy this will work. In addition places like that Yahoo car section should be closed down. The reason is the IPCC report states reduction in emissions essential and the car has become a symbol of death to many people for that reason and they look upon a car as bein obsolete. It would not matter what type of car just it's being on the road says museum piece to many people. That is what I think every time I see a column of cars at a traffic light.

Answer 5

Is it good for our economy, obviously not, or consumption would be reduced by the market. The fact that it has not, is the best indication that coal and oil are still the most cost effective energy sources out their. If the time comes where they are not, then you will not need any government mandates or other forms of command and control regulation to effect the switch. The market will do it for you and much more effectively than any government program.

Answer 6

CO2 reduction will hurt the economy not help it. It will divert assets into a area that will not produce a product. It will make all products more expensive and accomplish no positive affects.

Answer 7

reducing carbon emissions will cost allot but this money will be pumped back into the economy stimulating growth so in fact it will help and not hinder the US economy.

Answer 8

your right..it is good...specially in the industry groups....but due to this ,nature can be harmed which will cause to declining amount of raw materials(natural)....which will eventually cause...economic crisis(lack of raw products).......less raw materials...lesser production....lesser profit...unstable economy....